From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264557AbTLCNGK (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:06:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264558AbTLCNGK (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:06:10 -0500 Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.22.29]:13803 "EHLO mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264557AbTLCNGG (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:06:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:06:03 +0100 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Cc: Sven Luther , Johannes Stezenbach , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0-test9 ioctl compile warnings in userspace Message-ID: <20031203130603.GA7094@iliana> References: <20031112163750.GB18989@convergence.de> <20031202114350.GA25170@iliana> <20031203125648.GC1947@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20031203125648.GC1947@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Sven Luther Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:56:48PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 2 December 2003 12:43:50 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > the patch below fixes > > > > > > warning: signed and unsigned type in conditional expression > > > > > > when compiling userspace programs with a glibc built against > > > 2.6 kernel headers. > > > > > > This is a better version of my previous patch which aims > > > to fix all affected architectures. > > > > I am curious about this. > > > > This patch has been proposed since almost a month or more now, and > > clearly nobody seems to care about this, since it didn't make it in the > > 2.6.0-test11 tarball (don't know about more recent bk trees though) nor > > do the debian glibc maintainer judge the issue important enough to act > > on it (despite it breaking buildage of other packages). > > > > So, is there a reason why not to solve this problem this way, or a > > particular reason why __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC is still int and > > not unsigned int ? > > It doesn't clearly fix a bug, afaics. Also, most kernel hackers don't > care too much about the signed/unsigned warnings, as they are 99% > noise. Well, the main problem is that since the 2.6.0 kernel headers are used by glibc on debian (and maybe others) it makes building userland packages about this difficult. I was asking to know if there was something inherently bad about implementing this in the userland kernel headers provided by the glibc, as the glibc debian maintainers have not been responsive about this, but i know since that a fixed package will be provided once the situation resulting from the intrusion is cleared. > Resend the patch after 2.6.0 has been released, I don't see any change > for it to go in before. But also no particular reason not to use it, right ? Thanks for your reply. Friendly, Sven Luther