Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230619123535.324632-1-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> <20230619175710.GA200481@mail.hallyn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230619175710.GA200481@mail.hallyn.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:47:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRz0Y_D1Q=8xPKVJemYf=KUziC9s1TUJ86F+Lw+OrXdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] capabilities: fix sparse warning about __user access
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 1:57=E2=80=AFPM Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> =
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:35:35PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > The two syscalls for capget and capset are producing sparse warnings
> > as sparse is thinking that the "struct __user_cap_data_struct" is marke=
d
> > user, which seems to be down to the declaration and typedef at the same
> > time.
> >
> > Fix the following warnings by splutting the struct declaration and then
> > the user typedef into two:
>
> I'm not a fan of making code changes to work around scanners'
> shortcomings, mainly because eventually I assume the scanners
> will learn to deal with it.
>
> However, I don't like the all-in-one typedef+struct definition
> either, so let's go with it :)
>
> Paul, do you mind picking this up?

Sure, no problem.  Since we are at -rc7, I'm assuming this can wait
until after the merge window?

--=20
paul-moore.com