netdev - Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000

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: <53F21FB1.7060607@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:45:53 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz <cristos@...serv.org>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c
 coding style fixes

On 08/18/2014 08:31 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 08:29 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> Doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer is generally unsafe as
>> it is an incomplete type.  The only reason why it works in GCC is
>> because GCC has a nonstandard extension that makes it report as having a
>> size of 1.
> 
> I know.  It's used in quite a few places in kernel code
> so I believe it's now a base assumption for the kernel.

Well that is something that should probably be fixed then.  I don't
believe it is safe to be doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer.

We really shouldn't be using any GCC specific bits unless we absolutely
have to.

Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html