c is supported.
>
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei
> ---
> .clang-format | 2 +-
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda
Cheers,
Miguel
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kees - is there some online "gcc-4.4 checker" somewhere? This does
>>> seem to work with my gcc. I actually tested some of those fil
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kees - is there some online "gcc-4.4 checker" somewhere? This does
>>> seem to work with my gcc. I actually tested some of those fil
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>> That's not them, that's C standard regarding ICE.
>
> Yes. The C standard talks about "integer constant expression". I know.
> It's come up in this very thread before.
>
> The C standar
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> What I'm *not* so much ok with is "const_max(5,sizeof(x))" erroring
>> out, or silently causing insane behavior due to hidden subtle type
>> casts..
>
> Yup! I like it as an explicit a
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:08 AM, Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> By using this eye-bleed:
>>>
>>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
&g
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> By using this eye-bleed:
>>
>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with non-compile-time constant arg
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>>> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with non-compile-time constant arg");
>>> #def
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So in *historical* context - when a compiler didn't do variable length
> arrays at all - the original semantics of C "constant expressions"
> actually make a ton of sense.
>
> You can basically think of a constant expression as something t
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:33 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Alright, I'm giving up on fixing max(). I'll go back to STACK_MAX() or
>> some other name for the simple macro. Bleh.
>
> Oh, and I'm starting to see the real problem.
>
> It's not tha
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> When max() is used in stack arra
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
>>> (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
> If posix_acl_from_xattr() fails we leak memory stored in 'value'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mariusz Kozlowski
> ---
> fs/btrfs/acl.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
13 matches
Mail list logo
