Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1495297

Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user()

From Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user()
Date 2016-10-04 10:50 +0200
Message-ID <sotAd-he-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sosut-7Z7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sosNP-87P-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sosXw-8rq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sotqy-cY-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


> > > If that was the case, everyone should have seen such warnings
> > > from the day the original patch got introduced. 
> > 
> > Only if they run sparse. Clearly people don't, or we wouldn't have
> > a history of a ton of such problems, e.g.
> 
> No - you say "which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype".
> If that was the case, there would need to be a warning.

There would need to be a warning when?

> > > And the compiler warnings
> > > I get when testing with all four combinations of const and
> > > volatile
> > > also supports this by saying "expected 'const void *' but ..." 
> > 
> > It's not a compiler warning though that I'm getting.
> > 
> > What tool are you using to get such a warning?
> 
> I'm talking about gcc and the warning surfacing when I additonally
> add volatile.

Oh, sorry. If you get the warning, it prints "expected 'const void *'"
... yeah, I see.

> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Object-Size-Checking.html 
> 
> Perhaps it's just the documentation which is imprecise here?

Hmm, yeah, that could be right, or maybe it changed at some point?

If it were defined the way the documentation says, you should have
gotten a compiler warning ("passing argument 1 ... discards ‘const’
qualifier from pointer target type") with the code as it is (without my
patch), since you can't pass a const pointer to a function that expects
a non-const pointer. Clearly that didn't happen.

That does indicate that the prototype is indeed with the const, I guess
I'll go fix sparse instead.

Sorry I misread your earlier explanation entirely!

johannes

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-10-04 09:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> - 2016-10-04 10:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-10-04 10:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> - 2016-10-04 10:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - 2016-10-04 10:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] x86: suppress sparse warning in copy_to_user() "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> - 2016-10-04 11:10 +0200

csiph-web