Re: [PATCH] stubdom: Fix GCC 14 -Wmemset-elt-size compiler warnings in PolarSSL
Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.emulators.xen.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 25.08.2026 20:46, Andrew Mbugua wrote: > When compiling Xen with GCC 14, I get a compiler warning originating from the /polarssl-x86_64/library about a memset element size mismatch: > > ssl_tls.c: In function ‘ssl_session_reset’: > ssl_tls.c:1778:5: warning: ‘memset’ used with length equal to number of elements without multiplication by element size [-Wmemset-elt-size] > 1778 | memset( ssl->ctx_enc, 0, 128 ); > | ^~~~~~ > ssl_tls.c:1779:5: warning: ‘memset’ used with length equal to number of elements without multiplication by element size [-Wmemset-elt-size] > 1779 | memset( ssl->ctx_dec, 0, 128 ); > | ^~~~~~ > > This patch introduces a build-time patch to PolarSSL that replaces the hardcoded 128 byte length with a dynamic sizeof(), thus allowing clean compilation without warnings. First a formal note: Commit messages want limiting to 75 characters per line (some even say 72). Then: You introduce a patch which isn't used anywhere. What use is such a patch? You also ... > Signed-off-by: Andrew Mbugua <[email protected]> > --- > stubdom/patches/polarssl-gcc14-memset.patch | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 stubdom/patches/polarssl-gcc14-memset.patch ... introduce it in a new patches/ subdir, when all other patches live right beneath stubdom/. > --- /dev/null > +++ b/stubdom/patches/polarssl-gcc14-memset.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +--- a/library/ssl_tls.c > ++++ b/library/ssl_tls.c > +@@ -1775,8 +1775,8 @@ > + memset( ssl->iv_dec, 0, 16 ); > + memset( ssl->mac_enc, 0, 32 ); > + memset( ssl->mac_dec, 0, 32 ); > +- memset( ssl->ctx_enc, 0, 128 ); > +- memset( ssl->ctx_dec, 0, 128 ); > ++ memset( ssl->ctx_enc, 0, sizeof( *ssl->ctx_enc) ); > ++ memset( ssl->ctx_dec, 0, sizeof( *ssl->ctx_dec) ); Don't you mean sizeof(ssl->ctx_enc) and sizeof(ssl->ctx_dec) respectively? Otherwise it looks like you're making a bad situation worse. Judging from surrounding style, there also looks to be a blank missing each, ahead of the new inner closing parenthesis. Jan