linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 wireless-next 2/9] carl9170: remove unnecessary (void*) conversions

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: <712b1f74-72c3-4655-9e38-3138db74a1b7@quicinc.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:26:05 -0700
From:   Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
CC:     Wu Yunchuan <yunchuan@...china.com>,
        <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 wireless-next 2/9] carl9170: remove unnecessary (void*)
 conversions

On 9/28/2023 8:31 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com> writes:
> 
>> On 9/19/23 06:49, Wu Yunchuan wrote:
>>> No need cast (void *) to (struct ar9170 *), (u8 *) or (void*).
>>
>> hmm, your mail went into the spam folder. Good thing I checked.
>>
>>  From what I remember: The reason why these casts were added in
>> carl9170 was because of compiler warnings/complaints.
>> Current gcc compilers should be OK (given that the kernel-bot
>> didn't react, or went your Mail to their spam-folder as well?)
>> but have you checked these older versions?
> 
> Do you remember anything more about these warnings? I tried to check the
> git history and at least quickly couldn't find anything related to this.
> 
> The changes look very safe to me, struct urb::context field and the out
> variable are both of type 'void *' so removing the explicit casts should
> change anything. I cannot really come up a reason why would this patch
> cause new warnings so I am inclined towards taking this patch. What do
> you think?

Anything that would have had issue would have predated C99.
This change is safe.