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]

Message-ID: <ZAr4KXs7Y/8OPWKy@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:28:09 +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 Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:19:53AM +0100, Vincenzo Palazzo wrote:
> On Fri Mar 10, 2023 at 8:33 AM CET, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I was using this option because I would like to see if my c code has
> warnings, but currently it is not possible compile the kernel with 
> W=1.

Yes, that is the main issue here, the kernel does not build cleanly for
lots of good reasons (i.e. foolish compiler warnings that are not
actually pointing out a real problem), so that option is not enabled by
default right now.

So this change is not needed right now, perhaps you can fix up the
compiler to not make this type of warning for code that is correct?

> Maybe I'm missing a little bit of history here, this is not the correct
> option to compile the kernel with -Wall?

Yes, but the kernel does not build cleanly with that option, as you have
found out.  Fixes for when the kernel code is wrong is great to have,
but not at the expense of "we are doing this only to shut up the
compiler because it does not understand our code" like you are doing
here, sorry.

thanks,

greg k-h