lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] staging: lusten: conrpc.c: fix different address space sparse warning
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:34:05PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 04:09:03PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:31:14AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:14:06PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> > > > head_up parameter is marked with __user attribute, tmp is filled
> > > > by a copy_from_user from next, that is also marked as __user, so
> > > > tmp.next needs to be "casted" as __user to make sparse happy.
> > >
> > > But is it the correct change?
> >
> > I don't know, it's my first sparse patch, so I tried to fix this
> > warning.
> >
> > >
> > > You also have a typo in your subject :(
> >
> > Sorry, didn't noticed yesterday :(
> >
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > this is mt first patch addressing an issue of sparse, so let me know
> > > > if I misunderstood the error message
> > > >
> > > > drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> > > > index c6a683b..fb7ad74 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> > > > @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ lstcon_rpc_trans_interpreter(struct lstcon_rpc_trans *trans,
> > > > sizeof(struct list_head)))
> > > > return -EFAULT;
> > > >
> > > > - if (tmp.next == head_up)
> > > > + if ((struct list_head __user *)tmp.next == head_up)
> > >
> > > Aer you sure this is correct? __user changes for lustre is not
> > > trivial...
> > >
> > > How did you test this?
> >
> > I didn't tested, it just removed the warning. Is this a false positive?
>
> I don't know, it's up to you to prove to me that you know this change is
> correct. You have to justify your changes, and "because checkpatch.pl
> complained" isn't a valid justification for something like this :)

Fair enough, I'll take in another sparse report to work on. Thanks!

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

--
Thanks,
Marcos

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-29 12:52    [W:0.061 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site