linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [PERF] (Userspace Tools) Fix a compilation error with -fstack-protector and -Werror

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: <20101019064000.GC21782@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:40:00 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Brian Gitonga Marete <marete@...hnix.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PERF] (Userspace Tools) Fix a compilation error with
 -fstack-protector and -Werror


* Brian Gitonga Marete <marete@...hnix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:24:00AM +0300, Brian Gitonga Marete wrote:
> >> The following patch fixes compilation of the perf user-space tools on,
> >> for example, gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) . It should not
> >> break anything else.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What kind of warning have you encountered and why it fixes it?
> > Can you describe that in your changelog?
> >
> 
> Hello Frederic,
> 
> Some versions of gcc, e.g. gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4), have the 
> (default) minimum size of buffers protected by `-fstack-protector' set to 8. But 
> in perf, there exist much smaller automatic buffers.

Hm, it's this code:

        /* newtWinChoice should really be accepting const char pointers... */
        char yes[] = "Yes", no[] = "No";
        return newtWinChoice(NULL, yes, no, (char *)msg) == 1;

I.e. the code is messy and GCC is right to warn about it. Hence it would be somewhat 
bad to actually remove the warning that pointed out some dodgy piece of code.

Even if marking it const doesnt work due to the external libnewt API, we could at 
least put 'yes' and 'no' into file scope and mark them static?

	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/