netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/11] ath9k: work around false-positive gcc warning

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:   Sat, 7 Nov 2020 12:36:58 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        QCA ath9k Development <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/11] ath9k: work around false-positive gcc warning

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 12:21 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:
> > On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 18:26 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> writes:
> >> Isn't there a better way to handle this? I really would not want
> >> checking for GCC versions become a common approach in drivers.
> >>
> >> I even think that using memcpy() always is better than the ugly ifdef.
> >
> > If you put memcpy() always somebody will surely go and clean it up to
> > use ether_addr_copy() soon ...
>
> I can always add a comment and hope that the cleanup people read
> comments :) I did that now in the pending branch:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/commit/?h=pending&id=25cfc077bd7a798d1aa527ad2aa9932bb3284376
>
> Does that look ok? I prefer that over the ifdef.

Fine with me. My original reason for the compiler version check
was that we can eventually restore the previous version once the
compiler is fixed for long enough that all broken compilers are
too old to build the kernel, in maybe six years from now at the
current rate of deprecating old compilers.

       Arnd