linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] audit: avoid -Wempty-body warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:58:21 -0400
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
        Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: avoid -Wempty-body warning

On 2021-03-22 17:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:33 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > Change the macros to use the usual "do { } while (0)" instead, and change a
> > > few more that were (void)0, for consistency.
> >
> > So what about audit_put_watch() and audit_get_watch() which are set to
> > {}?   (And all of include/linux/audit.h that uses the latter...)  Does
> > this only matter if they are the only action called in an if or loop?
> 
> I missed those, thanks for pointing it out. I sent a v2 patch now.

Ok, cool, that looks more consistent.  Can you answer my question about
include/linux/audit.h and exactly what conditions require
"do { } while (0)" over "{ }"?

>          Arnd

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635