linux-kernel - Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?

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, 1 Feb 2008 23:38:29 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >One can ignore or one can fix...
> >I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
> >warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
> >complaining but failing to provide patches.
> 
> >	Sam - who expected more people to actually fix this stuff :-(
> 
> Well, with due respect, it's a bit presumptuous to add a bunch of 
> warnings to the kernel build (due to more strict checking), and then get 
> annoyed when people aren't jumping up and fixing this stuff immediately.

I did some testing and the new code does not emit warnings which were
not emitted before. But previously you had to use less typical
configurations to see them like HOTPLUG_CPU=y, HOTPLUG=n, gcc 3.3

> 
> There were no build complaints in 2.6.24 for my stuff (libata and 
> drivers/net) during my test builds, nor were there any for my 2.6.25-git 
> merge window pushes, nor were there any complaints when I last checked 
> Andrew's -mm tree.
> 
> So from our perspective, you dumped a lot of work in our laps from out 
> of the blue, getting irritated at us along the way.
> 
> Maybe we can resolve this in a more kinder, gentler, coordinated 
> fashion?  :)
It is the misinformation being spread that irritates me.
Thousand of hours, no real bugs found etc.

Anyway - that is all forgot tomorrow when we get the warning level down
to zero.
> 
> What could be done to prevent this sort of situation in the future? 
> Maybe add these checks to -mm, and then not push your strict checking 
> upstream until the build noise is reduced?

The good thing about getting it upstream is the additional attention.
If we do not get it down to acceptable levels I have no problems
turning off the section mismatch in minline but keep it enabled
in -mm.

	Sam
--
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/