netdev - Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1

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: <CAK8P3a2itguODKUNtw8m-7RReUkyEqk8fHYRLa-ZjJYjwwhYdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:31:02 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        IDE-ML <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

>
> We also have about a bazillion
>
>     warning: ‘*’ in boolean context, suggest ‘&&’ instead
>
> warnings in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, all due to a single macro that
> uses a pattern that gcc-7.1.1 doesn't like. The warning looks a bit
> debatable, but I suspect the macro could easily be changed too.
>
> Tejun, would you hate just moving the "multiply by 1000" part _into_
> that EZ() macro? Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) patch?

Tejun applied an almost identical patch of mine a while ago, but it seems to
have gotten lost in the meantime in some rebase:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721397/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721399/

I guess I should have resubmitted the second patch with the suggested
improvement.

     Arnd