linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

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:	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:33:36 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
	"sparse@...isli.org" <sparse@...isli.org>,
	"linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 01:09:33PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Sorry I am very frustrated at your response.

You shouldn't be. Judging by your reply below it seems we do actually
agree... mostly :-)

> I am not saying that the proposed added MACRO is the best solution to
> this issue.  Several other maintainers have actually responded in a
> similar manner to the macros being added and came back that the better
> solution would be to fix the code so that the warnings do not occur in
> the first place.

Right, this would be optimal.

> So I guess I was hoping for more of the response, that "let's fix this
> the code so that the warnings do not appear in the first place".
> 
> I agree with you completely that I do not like the idea of the MACROS
> being added to silence these warnings.  I just disagree that not doing
> anything to fix the warnings is far worse.

Ok, good, so we're on the same page here.

> Why grep through 100,000 warnings, when we should be fixing the code to
> prevent 100,000 warnings.  Not saying that the MACRO is the best
> solution, it is just a solution, in hopes that it spurs discussions like
> this on how to properly fix the warnings.  Not a discussion on how to
> grep through the warnings and do nothing.

There's only one thing I don't understand: why is so bad to grep through
the warnings? I mean, sure, fixing them *without* jumping through hoops
to do so is the optimal thing. But what's wrong with grepping through
them?

Btw, out of curiosity, what is your use case for staring at those W=2
warnings?

In thinking about it, what we could also do is simply move the noisiest
ones to W=3 or so, or even add another W= level. It'll be interesting to
hear your use case though. AFAICT, this is the first time I hear of a
more, let's say, serious use case of W= since we added the W= things a
couple of years ago. :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/