linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ps8640: Fix size mismatch warning w/ len

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: <CAD=FV=Xpp16ptOuQz=5UYfgm8B-WbNXF95YwA1t-FTkzOYRE_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:24:46 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>, 
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>, 
	Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, 
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: ps8640: Fix size mismatch warning w/ len

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:05 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> After commit 26195af57798 ("drm/bridge: ps8640: Drop the ability of
> ps8640 to fetch the EDID"), I got an error compiling:
>
>   error: comparison of distinct pointer types
>   ('typeof (len) *' (aka 'unsigned int *') and
>    'typeof (msg->size) *' (aka 'unsigned long *'))
>   [-Werror,-Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types]
>
> Fix it by declaring the `len` as size_t.
>
> Fixes: 26195af57798 ("drm/bridge: ps8640: Drop the ability of ps8640 to fetch the EDID")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
> Sorry for sending this hot on the heels of the other patch, but for
> some reason that other patch compiled fine for me until I picked it
> back to my downstream tree. I'll see if I can track down why. In any
> case, as soon as I see a Reviewed-by tag I'll land this.

Ah, I found it! <Phew> this makes me less worried that I had some
failure in my testing. I believe that upstream things weren't a
problem because of commit d03eba99f5bf ("minmax: allow
min()/max()/clamp() if the arguments have the same signedness.").
...so at least what's landed isn't actually broken upstream, just
downstream. It still feels reasonable to change this to "size_t",
though.

-Doug