linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sdhci: 'scratch' may be used uninitialized

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081006082541.GA5001@elte.hu>
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/