From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Ismael Luceno <ismael@iodev.co.uk>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] ioctl: Fix implicit constant conversion overflow
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:04:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240610160408.GN10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zl0i_i0yTeLyjCOZ@pirotess>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 03:57:18AM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> On 02/Jun/2024 18:50, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 05:01:10AM +0200, Ismael Luceno wrote:
> > > On 31/May/2024 22:34, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > <...>
> > > > > +#define _IOW(a,b,c) _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,(a),(b),(int)sizeof(c))
> > > > > +#define _IOR(a,b,c) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(a),(b),(int)sizeof(c))
> > > > > +#define _IOWR(a,b,c) _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE,(a),(b),(int)sizeof(c))
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how this helps with the warning you're trying to suppress,
> > >
> > > GCC disagrees; the warnings go away because it's this element that
> > > causes the whole expression to be promoted to unsigned long long,
> > > so making it smaller (we can use unsigned int instead) avoids the
> > > issue.
> >
> > In that case gcc is just being inconsistent. Both the conversion from
> > unsigned int to int and size_t to int are non-value-preserving. It
> > makes no sense that it warns for the latter but not for the former.
> >
> > "Make weird inconsistent warning messages go away" is not a motivation
> > for a change. If the command macros could all be made to have type int
> > (matcing the ioctl argument) without introducing new problems, that
> > would be a well-motivated change. I suppose "make them have type
> > unsigned int rather than unsigned long so that they're not
> > gratuitously over-wide" might be well-motivated too, but I suspect it
> > leaves in place warnings in some places. "Fix implicit constant
> > conversion overflow" is not a well-motivated change since there is no
> > overflow.
>
> GCC doesn't make much sense here but the warning appears with several
> versions of GCC.
>
> An explicit cast at _IOC instead would make sense to me, but what could
> break in your opinion?
I'm not sure. It needs investigation. There might have been some
concern with breakage from kernel headers that define ioctl numbers or
something. I just remember this hasn't been as simple as it sounds
from past times it came up..
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-10 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-01 1:03 Ismael Luceno
2024-06-01 2:34 ` Rich Felker
2024-06-02 3:01 ` Ismael Luceno
2024-06-02 22:50 ` Rich Felker
2024-06-03 1:57 ` Ismael Luceno
2024-06-10 16:04 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2024-06-11 19:02 ` Ismael Luceno
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240610160408.GN10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=ismael@iodev.co.uk \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).