| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:25:41 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx> Cc: Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sdhci: 'scratch' may be used uninitialized * Pierre Ossman <drzeus@...eus.cx> wrote: > > Correct. Would you be interested in sending a patch for a > > (default-off) debug feature that allows the disabling of all the gcc > > annotations? That way we can do regular sweeps to determine whether > > old annotations are still relevant on latest and greatest GCC. > > How would you find the ones that are no longer needed though? ideally gcc should not emit _any_ bogus warning. Life is too short to comb through crappy warnings and to keep in mind which ones are relevant and which ones are not. compiler-intel.h does not make use of the annotations for example. > Perhaps we could make it so that uninitialized_var() itself emits a > warning. That way you could turn that option on and check that you > always have pairs of warnings. ok - when CONFIG_CC_DEBUG_ALLOW_WARNINGS=y - and then the work flow would be to go for single-occurance warnings and eliminate them (because their annotation is moot). Ingo -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists