>>> On 16.10.13 at 19:05, Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> if you have found cases where this matters... maybe you found a new security >>> issue... >> >> Iirc I could convince myself that in the cited cases the warnings >> were there for no reason. > > can you pick one on a source level ? > (and the gcc 4.6 had a few false positives which is why it got disabled > there) Sure: Let's take __tun_chr_ioctl(): While a static function, it gets called with two different values for ifreq_len, both of which are provably (for a human) correct. I don't think, however, that the compiler can be expected to do so on its own in all cases - I would expect it to be able to when it decides to inline the function in both callers, but the larger that function grows, the more likely it'll become that the compiler chooses to keep it separate (and it surely would when CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE). Otoh one would expect a modern compiler to be able to do the checking in the case of aer_inject_write(). Yet not everyone is using most recent compiler versions, but I personally expect a warning free compilation in that case too (at least outside the staging sub-tree, which I avoid to build as much as possible). And I know that I had seen the warning there (or else it wouldn't have caught my attention, and I wouldn't have quoted it in the patch description). Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
