On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:00:09PM +0100, christophe leroy wrote:
> Le 26/02/2018 à 18:50, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> >On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org>
> >wrote:
> >>On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:50 AM, Christophe LEROY
> >><christophe.le...@c-s.fr> wrote:
> >>>Note that I already try to submit a fix for this warning 3 years ago
> >>>(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/418075/) and it was rejected with the
> >>>following comment:
> >
> >Tested again today with gcc 6.3.0 and gcc is still producing the
> >original warning (treated as error).
>
> That's right, it seems that recent versions of gcc are not happy anymore
> with that change.
>
> Maybe Segher has a suggestion for that one ?
Your patch:
#define __access_ok(addr, size, segment) \
(((addr) <= (segment).seg) && \
- (((size) == 0) || (((size) - 1) <= ((segment).seg - (addr)))))
+ (((size) <= 1) || (((size) - 1) <= ((segment).seg - (addr)))))
Is there any reason to write this as a macro? Let's make this more
readable:
static inline int __access_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
mm_segment_t seg)
{
if (addr > seg.seg)
return 0;
return (size == 0 || size - 1 <= seg.seg - addr);
}
and I think we are done already, or will this warn for any input?
Segher
