netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] af_unix: Fix undefined 'other' error

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0dcf0f9d-6ced-4fdd-9dc0-083ff161354f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:07:01 +0530
From: Purva Yeshi <purvayeshi550@...il.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] af_unix: Fix undefined 'other' error

On 18/02/25 18:51, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:14:14PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:15:15AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> So, hypothetically, Smatch could be enhanced and there wouldn't be any
>>> locking warnings with this patch applied?
>>
>> Heh.  No.  What I meant to say was that none of this has anything to do
>> with Smatch.  This is all Sparse stuff.  But also I see now that my email
>> was wrong...
>>
>> What happened is that we changed unix_sk() and that meant Sparse couldn't
>> parse the annotations and prints "error: undefined identifier 'other'".
>> The error disables Sparse checking for the file.
>>
>> When we fix the error then the checking is enabled again.  The v1 patch
>> which changes the annotation is better than the v2 patch because then
>> it's 9 warnings vs 11 warnings.
>>
>> The warnings are all false positives.  All old warnings are false
>> positives.  And again, these are all Sparse warnings, not Smatch.  Smatch
>> doesn't care about annotations.  Smatch has different bugs completely.
>> ;)
> 
> Thanks for clarifying :)
> 
> Based on the above I'd advocate accepting the code changes in v2 [*].
> And live with the warnings.
> 
> Which I think is to say that Iwashima-san was right all along.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> 
> [*] Purva, please post a v3 that updates the commit message as per
>      Jakub's request elsewhere in this thread:
>      https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250212104845.2396abcf@kernel.org/
> 

Thanks for the review and clarification! I'll prepare v3 with no 
trailing double spaces and a more detailed description.

Best regards,
Purva