Hi,
On 9/28/21 12:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:40 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 9/27/21 8:33 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:22 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More specifically, ' think '\377' may be either -1 or 255 depending on
>>>> the architecture.
>>>> On most architectures, 'char' is implicitly signed, but on some others
>>>> it is not.
>>>
>>> Yeah. That code is just broken.
>>>
>>> And Arnd, your patch may be "conceptually minimal", in that it keeps
>>> thed broken code and makes it work. But it just dials up the oddity to
>>> 11.
>
> Thank you for addressing it. I usually try to avoid overthinking changes
> to "unusual" code like this, but your solution is clearly an improvement.
>
> What really threw me off this time is that my first attempt to address
> the warning was an exact revert of 9d682ea6bcc7 ("vboxsf: Fix the
> check for the old binary mount-arguments struct"), which in turn
> came from a tool that is usually correct and and that both Dan
> and Al thought the original patch was correct when it looked like
> it turned a working (though unusual) implementation into a broken
> one.
>
>> I agree that your suggestion is to be the best solution,
>> so how do we move forward with this, do I turn this into a
>> proper patch with you as the author and Arnd as Reported-by and
>> if yes may I add your Signed-off-by to the patch ?
>
> It's already upstream, see d5f6545934c4 ("qnx4: work around gcc
> false positive warning bug").
Ah, actually you mean: 9b3b353ef330 ("vboxfs: fix broken legacy mount
signature checking"), but other then that yes you're right it
is already upstream.
Thank you Arnd and thank you Linus.
Regards,
Hans
