linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] bits: introduce fixed-type BIT

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: <b7718c92-3934-4ce7-b9a1-0d8ac03dadc3@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 23:16:30 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
 Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin
 <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
 David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/5] bits: introduce fixed-type BIT_U*()

On 24/03/2025 at 22:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:23:13PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
>>
>> Implement fixed-type BIT_U*() to help drivers add stricter checks,
>> like it was done for GENMASK_U*().
> 
> ...
> 
>> +/*
>> + * Fixed-type variants of BIT(), with additional checks like GENMASK_TYPE(). The
>> + * following examples generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:
> 
> "...due to -Wshift-count-overflow:" ?
> 
> Same idea — if you need a new version, since it's just a nit-pick.

If you want. I staged this change locally, so if there is a v8, it will
be addressed. I applied the same to the previous patch which also
mentioned shift-count-overflow without the -W prefix.

But honestly, I am not convinced of the added value. This is from Lucas
original patch one year ago, and no one was bothered by this. IMHO, when
writing:

  (...) generate compiler warnings due to shift-count-overflow:

I do not see where the ambiguity is. The sentence clearly say that this
is a compiler warning, so with or without the -W prefix, the sentence is
equally understandable.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol