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  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, 1 Feb 2021 16:09:48 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <>
To:     Vinicius Tinti <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: Enable code path when DX_DEBUG is set

On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 03:41:50PM -0300, Vinicius Tinti wrote:
> My goal is to avoid having a dead code. Three options come to mind.
> The first would be to add another #ifdef SOMETHING (suggest a name).
> But this doesn't remove the code and someone could enable it by accident.

I *really* don't see the point of having the compiler whine about
"dead code", so I'm not terribly fond of
-Wunreachable-code-aggressive.  There may be times where depending on
how things are compiled, we *want* the compiler to remove code block,
and it makes the code less ugly than having #ifdef ... #endif breaking
up the code.

If turning that on requires uglifying many places in the kernel code,
maybe the right answer is... don't.

That being said, I have no problem of replacing

	if (0) {


#ifdef DX_DEBUG

In this particular place.

But before we go there, I want to register my extreme skepticsm about
-Wunreachable-code-aggressive.  How much other places where it is
***obvious*** that the maintainer really knew what they are doing, and
it's just the compiler whining about a false positive?

> > However, if there *is* a bug, having an early detection that the
> > representation invariant of the data structure has been violated can
> > be useful in root causing a bug.  This would probably be clearer if
> > the code was pulled out into a separate function with comments
> > explaining that this is a rep invariant check.
> Good idea. I will do that too.

If you want to do that, and do something like

#ifdef DX_DEBUG
static inline htree_rep_invariant_Check(...)
static inline htree_rep_invariant_check(...) { }

I'm not going to complain.  That's actually a better way to go, since
there may be other places in the code where a developer might want to
introduce a rep invariant check.  So that's actually improving the
code, as opposed to making a pointless change just to suppress a
compiler warning.

Of course, then someone will try enabling a -W flag which causes the
compiler to whine about empty function bodies....

					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists