On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:10 PM Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/16/20 11:08 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On 1/16/20 8:19 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > >> Two places used u32 where there should have been __le32. > >> > >> Fixes sparse warnings: > >> CHECK [...]/security/selinux/ss/services.c > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2669:16: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2669:16: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2669:16: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2674:24: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2674:24: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2674:24: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2675:24: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2675:24: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2675:24: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2676:24: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2676:24: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2676:24: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2681:32: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2681:32: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2681:32: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2701:16: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2701:16: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2701:16: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2706:24: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2706:24: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2706:24: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2707:24: warning: incorrect type > >> in assignment (different base types) > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2707:24: expected unsigned int > >> [...]/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c:2707:24: got restricted __le32 > >> [usertype] > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > However, note that checkpatch doesn't like your subject line. > WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool > that found it Hm, I run checkpatch.pl from a pre-commit git hook, so it likely only looks at the diff itself... I'll see if I can tweak the hook to check a full patch generated from the commit. It has a good point, though. I'll reword the subject. -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc.
