linux-kernel - Re: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:21:10 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree

    Jeff> So, I agree that annotations are a good idea, but I'm not so
    Jeff> sure that your proposed "= 0" approach is the best one.
    Jeff> Remember, we need to do this for multi-member structures,
    Jeff> integers, and pointers, not just things easily assigned to
    Jeff> zero.

Not to mention the fact that "foo = 0" generates extra (probably
unnecessary) code to initialize foo, while "foo = foo" just shuts up
the gcc warning without affecting generated code.

I'm already somewhat unconfortable shutting up these gcc warnings at
all, since adding these annotations add one more thing that must be
maintained -- I feel it would be all-too-easy to change the logic of a
function in a way that introduces a bug, and then have the annotation
hide a "is used uninitialised" warning.

But I definitely feel we shouldn't make our object code even slightly
worse just to shut up the warnings.

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/