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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3hQKASNVp0VsFYteGh6Mav3=iNZT5n2eWzFieH0hpXjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 19:24:51 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To:     Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
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 Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:58 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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 "{ }"?

This is the usual way of constructing a C expression that can be used
e.g. in

   if (x)
          foo();
   else
          bar();

If foo() is defined as '{}', this causes a syntax error.

         Arnd