linux-kernel - Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs"

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: <adatzbbrrcf.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:47:44 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs"

 > OTOH, there should be a well-defined work flow to keep this all 
 > manageable: once we know why a warning triggers and it has been 
 > categorized by a human, we should get rid of the warning in some way. 
 > 
 > Applying this patch as-is would be one option. Annotating it with a 
 > specific gcc version would be overkill i think. Ignoring it would be 
 > bad, because there's real value in standardizing on a "no warnings" 
 > build output. Many new warnings get introduced because people do not 
 > notice new warnings amongst the very high baseline noise of the kernel 
 > build.

The specific change I noticed:

 > -						       (1 << MGM_BLCK_LB_BIT));
 > +						       (1U << MGM_BLCK_LB_BIT));

is not a problem to me -- the code is fine either way, and if we're
making an effort to kill all warnings, then I'm OK with merging it.
It's a little unfortunate to add churn due to a gcc bug that is only in
certain 4.3 releases, but this particular case doesn't seem to trigger
in many places, so the cost is low.

However I worry about warnings produced by gcc bugs forcing us to tinker
with correct code.  Maybe it just makes sense to wait and see if we ever
hit a case where a gcc bug forces us to make too many stupid changes,
and figure out what to do if and when that happens.

 - R.
--
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/