On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:21 AM Christian Göttsche
<cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Use a consistent type of unsigned int* for boolean arrays, instead of
> using implicit casts to and from int*.
>
> Reported by sparse:
>
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different signedness)
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30: expected unsigned int *
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1481:30: got int *[addressable] values
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different signedness)
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48: expected int *values
> security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:1398:48: got unsigned int *bool_pending_values
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> A more invasive change would be to change all boolean arrays to bool*.
I think that might be a worthwhile change, although that can happen at
a later date.
A quick general comment: please try to stick to 80-char long lines. I
realize Linus/checkpatch.pl has started to allow longer lines but I
would still like SELinux to try and keep to 80-chars or under.
> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> index 6901dc07680d..7865926962ab 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> @@ -3175,7 +3175,8 @@ int security_get_bool_value(struct selinux_state *state,
> static int security_preserve_bools(struct selinux_policy *oldpolicy,
> struct selinux_policy *newpolicy)
> {
> - int rc, *bvalues = NULL;
> + int rc;
> + unsigned int *bvalues = NULL;
Doesn't this cause a type mismatch (unsigned int vs int) when an entry
from bvalues[] is assigned to cond_bool_datum::state later in the
security_preserve_bools() function?
--
paul-moore.com
