Re: [PATCH] capability: erase checker warnings about struct __user_cap_data_struct

[Serge E. Hallyn]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:45:00PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:29 PM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 01:45:27PM +0800, GONG, Ruiqi wrote:
> > > Currently Sparse warns the following when compiling kernel/capability.c:
> > >
> > > kernel/capability.c:191:35: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
> > > kernel/capability.c:191:35:    expected void const *from
> > > kernel/capability.c:191:35:    got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user *
> > > kernel/capability.c:168:14: warning: dereference of noderef expression
> > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations)
> > > kernel/capability.c:244:29: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > > kernel/capability.c:244:29:    expected void *to
> > > kernel/capability.c:244:29:    got struct __user_cap_data_struct [noderef] __user ( * )[2]
> > > kernel/capability.c:247:42: warning: dereference of noderef expression
> > > ...... (multiple noderef warnings on different locations)
> > >
> > > It seems that defining `struct __user_cap_data_struct` together with
> > > `cap_user_data_t` make Sparse believe that the struct is `noderef` as
> > > well. Separate their definitions to clarify their respective attributes.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: GONG, Ruiqi <gongruiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Seems ok.
> >
> > There's still so much noise in the make C=2 output even just for
> > kernel/capability.c that I'm not sure it's worth it, but no
> > objection.
> >
> > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I'm guessing you would prefer if I pulled this via the LSM tree Serge?

Yes, please.

> FWIW, if that is ever the case for future patches, just add a note
> when you ACK something and I'll pick it up.

Thanks, will do.

If it starts happening more than once or twice a month, then I'll get my tree
into shape and start cueing up patches...