linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT

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]

Message-ID: <CAMZ6Rq+Esmr4s6eTQPwEX3hjhCDTVgt-wDU=zTaE8gJxBZHg2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 21:22:38 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK()

On Tue. 8 Mar 2022 at 01:33, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:06 PM Vincent MAILHOL
> <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon. 7 Mar 2022 at 22:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alexander Lobakin
> > > <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:08 +0200
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Vincent Mailhol
> > > > > <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > Have you fixed W=1 warnings?
> > > > > Without fixing W=1 (which makes much more sense, when used with
> > > > > WERROR=y && COMPILE_TEST=y) this has no value.
> > > >
> > > > How is this connected?
> > >
> > > By priorities.
> > > I don't see much value in fixing W=2 per se if the code doesn't compile for W=1.
> >
> > *My code* compiles for W=1. For me, fixing this W=2 in the next in line
> > if speaking of priorities.
>
> > I do not understand why I should be forbidden to fix a W=2 in the
> > file which I am maintaining on the grounds that some code to which
> > I do not care still has some W=1.
>
> It's not forbidden. I said something different.
>
> Whatever, thank you for doing it, perhaps we will have less noise in W=2 case.

Great! So does it mean you are withdrawing your NAK?
Or do you still have concern on the patch itself?


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol