linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] tools/nolibc: stdint: use int for size

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: <44f1bab4-9d0a-4e7d-a73b-2c00c6029070@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Sat, 5 Aug 2023 18:25:52 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yuan Tan <tanyuan@...ylab.org>,
        Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] tools/nolibc: stdint: use int for size_t on
 32bit

On 2023-08-05 18:19:29+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:28:49AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Otherwise both gcc and clang may generate warnings about type
> > mismatches:
> > 
> > sysroot/mips/include/string.h:12:14: warning: mismatch in argument 1 type of built-in function 'malloc'; expected 'unsigned int' [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
> >    12 | static void *malloc(size_t len);
> >       |              ^~~~~~
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > ---
> >  tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h
> > index 4b282435a59a..0f390c3028d8 100644
> > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h
> > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h
> > @@ -15,7 +15,11 @@ typedef unsigned int       uint32_t;
> >  typedef   signed int        int32_t;
> >  typedef unsigned long long uint64_t;
> >  typedef   signed long long  int64_t;
> > +#if __SIZE_WIDTH__ == 64
> >  typedef unsigned long        size_t;
> > +#else
> > +typedef unsigned int         size_t;
> > +#endif
> 
> This one breaks gcc < 7 for me because __SIZE_WIDTH__ is not defined
> there. However I could trace __SIZE_TYPE__ to be defined since at least
> gcc-3.4 so instead we can do this, which will always match the type set
> by the compiler (either "unsigned int" or "unsigned long int") :
> 
>   #ifdef __SIZE_TYPE__
>   typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
>   #else
>   typedef unsigned long size_t;
>   #endif

Sounds good. But do we need the fallback?

Further below we are also unconditionally using preprocessor-defines
like __INT_MAX__ and __LONG_MAX__.

So I guess we can drop the proposed #ifdef.

> Please just let me know if you want me to modify your patch accordingly.
> I'm still continuing the tests.

Feel free to modify the patch.

Thanks!
Thomas