| Message ID | 20230602054527.290696-1-gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Paul Moore |
| Headers | show |
| Series | capability: erase checker warnings about struct __user_cap_data_struct | expand |
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:45:27PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: > Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c: > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > kernel/capability.c:191:35: expected void const *from > kernel/capability.c:191:35: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user * > kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > kernel/capability.c:244:29: expected void *to > kernel/capability.c:244:29: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2] > kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with > `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as > well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes. > > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> Seems ok. There's still so much noise in the make C=2 output even just for kernel/capability.c that I'm not sure it's worth it, but no objection. Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > --- > include/uapi/linux/capability.h | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h > index 3d61a0ae055d..5bb906098697 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h > @@ -41,11 +41,12 @@ typedef struct __user_cap_header_struct { > int pid; > } __user *cap_user_header_t; > > -typedef struct __user_cap_data_struct { > +struct __user_cap_data_struct { > __u32 effective; > __u32 permitted; > __u32 inheritable; > -} __user *cap_user_data_t; > +}; > +typedef struct __user_cap_data_struct __user *cap_user_data_t; > > > #define VFS_CAP_REVISION_MASK 0xFF000000 > -- > 2.25.1
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:29 PM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:45:27PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: > > Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c: > > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: expected void const *from > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user * > > kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: expected void *to > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2] > > kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > > > It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with > > `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as > > well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes. > > > > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> > > Seems ok. > > There's still so much noise in the make C=2 output even just for > kernel/capability.c that I'm not sure it's worth it, but no > objection. > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> I'm guessing you would prefer if I pulled this via the LSM tree Serge? FWIW, if that is ever the case for future patches, just add a note when you ACK something and I'll pick it up.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:45:00PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:29 PM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:45:27PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: > > > Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c: > > > > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: expected void const *from > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user * > > > kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: expected void *to > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2] > > > kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > > > > > It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with > > > `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as > > > well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> > > > > Seems ok. > > > > There's still so much noise in the make C=2 output even just for > > kernel/capability.c that I'm not sure it's worth it, but no > > objection. > > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > > I'm guessing you would prefer if I pulled this via the LSM tree Serge? Yes, please. > FWIW, if that is ever the case for future patches, just add a note > when you ACK something and I'll pick it up. Thanks, will do. If it starts happening more than once or twice a month, then I'll get my tree into shape and start cueing up patches...
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 1:50 PM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:45:00PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:29 PM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:45:27PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote: > > > > Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c: > > > > > > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) > > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: expected void const *from > > > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user * > > > > kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: expected void *to > > > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2] > > > > kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression > > > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) > > > > > > > > It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with > > > > `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as > > > > well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> > > > > > > Seems ok. > > > > > > There's still so much noise in the make C=2 output even just for > > > kernel/capability.c that I'm not sure it's worth it, but no > > > objection. > > > > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> > > > > I'm guessing you would prefer if I pulled this via the LSM tree Serge? > > Yes, please. Done, it's merged into lsm/next. > > FWIW, if that is ever the case for future patches, just add a note > > when you ACK something and I'll pick it up. > > Thanks, will do. > > If it starts happening more than once or twice a month, then I'll get my tree > into shape and start cueing up patches... No problem, as long as the patches are fairly trivial I don't mind.
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h index 3d61a0ae055d..5bb906098697 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/capability.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/capability.h @@ -41,11 +41,12 @@ typedef struct __user_cap_header_struct { int pid; } __user *cap_user_header_t; -typedef struct __user_cap_data_struct { +struct __user_cap_data_struct { __u32 effective; __u32 permitted; __u32 inheritable; -} __user *cap_user_data_t; +}; +typedef struct __user_cap_data_struct __user *cap_user_data_t; #define VFS_CAP_REVISION_MASK 0xFF000000
Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c: kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces) kernel/capability.c:191:35: expected void const *from kernel/capability.c:191:35: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user * kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) kernel/capability.c:244:29: expected void *to kernel/capability.c:244:29: got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2] kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations) It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes. Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@huaweicloud.com> --- include/uapi/linux/capability.h | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)