linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] af_unix: Fix undefined 'other' error

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: <20250218132123.GT1615191@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:21:23 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Purva Yeshi <purvayeshi550@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] af_unix: Fix undefined 'other' error

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:14:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:15:15AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > So, hypothetically, Smatch could be enhanced and there wouldn't be any
> > locking warnings with this patch applied?
> 
> Heh.  No.  What I meant to say was that none of this has anything to do
> with Smatch.  This is all Sparse stuff.  But also I see now that my email
> was wrong...
> 
> What happened is that we changed unix_sk() and that meant Sparse couldn't
> parse the annotations and prints "error: undefined identifier 'other'".
> The error disables Sparse checking for the file.
> 
> When we fix the error then the checking is enabled again.  The v1 patch
> which changes the annotation is better than the v2 patch because then
> it's 9 warnings vs 11 warnings.
> 
> The warnings are all false positives.  All old warnings are false
> positives.  And again, these are all Sparse warnings, not Smatch.  Smatch
> doesn't care about annotations.  Smatch has different bugs completely.
> ;)

Thanks for clarifying :)

Based on the above I'd advocate accepting the code changes in v2 [*].
And live with the warnings.

Which I think is to say that Iwashima-san was right all along.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

[*] Purva, please post a v3 that updates the commit message as per
    Jakub's request elsewhere in this thread:
    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250212104845.2396abcf@kernel.org/