linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4

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:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:53:00 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	ray-gmail@...rabbit.org
Cc:	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:34:23 PST, Ray Lee said:
> On 10/31/06, Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > At some point we should get rid of all the "politeness" warnings, just
> > > because they can end up hiding the _real_ ones.
> >
> > Yay! Couldn't agree more. Does this mean you'll take patches for all the
> > uninitialized variable crap from gcc 4.x ?
> 
> What would be useful in the short term is a tool that shows only the
> new warnings that didn't exist in the last point release.

Harder to do than you might think - it has to deal with the fact that
2.6.N might have a warning about 'used unintialized on line 430', and
in 2.6.N+1 you get two warnings, one on line 420 and one on 440.  Which
one is new and which one just moved 10 lines up or down?  Or did a patch
fix the one on 430 and add 2 new ones?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped