netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool 1/7] netlink: get rid of signed/unsigned comparison warnings

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:30:13 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool 1/7] netlink: get rid of signed/unsigned
 comparison warnings

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 04:11:22PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 11:24:19PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > Get rid of compiler warnings about comparison between signed and
> > unsigned integer values in netlink code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
> > ---
> >  netlink/features.c | 4 ++--
> >  netlink/netlink.c  | 4 ++--
> >  netlink/netlink.h  | 2 +-
> >  netlink/nlsock.c   | 2 +-
> >  netlink/parser.c   | 2 +-
> >  netlink/settings.c | 6 +++---
> >  6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/netlink/features.c b/netlink/features.c
> > index 8b5b8588ca23..f5862e97a265 100644
> > --- a/netlink/features.c
> > +++ b/netlink/features.c
> > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ int dump_features(const struct nlattr *const *tb,
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		for (j = 0; j < results.count; j++) {
> > -			if (feature_flags[j] == i) {
> > +			if (feature_flags[j] == (int)i) {
> >  				n_match++;
> >  				flag_value = flag_value ||
> >  					feature_on(results.active, j);
> > @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int dump_features(const struct nlattr *const *tb,
> >  		for (j = 0; j < results.count; j++) {
> >  			const char *name = get_string(feature_names, j);
> >  
> > -			if (feature_flags[j] != i)
> > +			if (feature_flags[j] != (int)i)
> 
> Hi Michal
> 
> Would it be better to make feature_flags an unsigned int * ? And
> change the -1 to MAX_UNIT?

It certainly would. I was actually thinking about this solution for
a moment but then I managed to mistake feature_flags with off_flag_def
and convinced myself that it's shared with ioctl code so that changing
its type would require changes there as well. Thank you for pointing
this out.

Michal