linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a plain 'unsigned long'

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, 8 Nov 2021 15:45:10 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     nsaenz@...nel.org, jim2101024@...il.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
        robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'

On 11/8/21 3:30 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> [...]
>>>> Jim, Florian and Lorenzo - is this something that would be OK with you,
>>>> or you would rather keep things as they were?
>>>
>>> I would be tempted to leave the code as-is, but if we do we are probably
>>> bound to seeing patches like Christophe's in the future to address the
>>
>> Even if I don't find this report in the Coverity database, it should from
>> around April 2018.
>> So, if you have not already received several patches for that, I doubt that
>> you will receive many in the future.
>>
>>
>> My own feeling is that using a long (and not a long *) as a bitmap, and
>> accessing it with &long may look spurious to a reader.
>> That said, it works.
>>
>> So, I let you decide if the patch is of any use. Should I need to tweak or
>> resend it, let me know.
> 
> I would be pro taking it, not only to addresses the Coverity complaint, but
> also to align the code with other drivers a little bit more.  Only if
> the driver maintainers have no objection, that is.

Driver consistency is a strong argument, fine with me then.
-- 
Florian