linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: Move -Wmaybe-uninitialized to W=1

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:	Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:19:32 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: Move -Wmaybe-uninitialized to W=1

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:08:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Let me try to get to the bottom of this, maybe we can get the warning
> back in the future. It has found a number of actual bugs. The majority
> of -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings that I fixed in linux-next were
> false positives (maybe four out of five) but I would think the reason

So this is exactly the problem: we should not fix perfectly fine code
just so that gcc remains quiet. So when you say "fixed false positives"
you actually mean, "changed it so that gcc -Wmaybe-u... doesn't fire"
right?

And we should not do that.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--