linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1] x86: suppress warning generated by 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, 10 Mar 2023 08:33:26 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86: suppress warning generated by W=1

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 06:48:54PM +0100, Vincenzo Palazzo wrote:
> suppress unused warnings and fix the error that there is
> with the W=1 enabled.

Why are you building with that option enabled?  It's not a normal one at
all.

> 
> Warning generated
> 
> arch/x86/entry/common.c:238:24: error: no previous prototype for ‘do_SYSENTER_32’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>   238 | __visible noinstr long do_SYSENTER_32(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@...il.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/entry/common.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> index 6c2826417b33..8f17b2c3e9de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> @@ -234,6 +234,9 @@ __visible noinstr long do_fast_syscall_32(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> +/* prototype is a placeholder to suppress the missing prototype worning */
> +long do_SYSENTER_32(struct pt_regs *regs);

This feels wrong, sorry, and you have a spelling error in your comment.

> +
>  /* Returns 0 to return using IRET or 1 to return using SYSEXIT/SYSRETL. */
>  __visible noinstr long do_SYSENTER_32(struct pt_regs *regs)

It's wrong because look, you define it right here so why do you need a
prototype?

thanks,

greg k-h