linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/zswap.c: add BUG() for default case in zswap_writeback

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:	Mon, 09 Dec 2013 19:21:25 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
To:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
CC:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zswap.c: add BUG() for default case in zswap_writeback_entry()

On 12/09/2013 06:18 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> On 09/12/13 10:11, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> Since the metag compiler is stuck on an old version (gcc 4.2.4), which
>>> is wrong to warn in this case, and newer versions of gcc don't appear to
>>> warn about it anyway (I just checked with gcc 4.7.2 x86_64), I have no
>>> objection to this warning remaining in the metag build.
>>>
>>
>> Do you try "EXTRA_CFLAGS=-W" with gcc 4.7.2? I guess it will report the
>> warning too, I don't feel the compiler is smart enough (except it lets
>> the long function zswap_get_swap_cache_page really inline)  :-)
> 
> EXTRA_CFLAGS=-W on gcc 4.7.2 gives me plenty of pointless unused
> parameter warnings when compiling mm/zswap.o, but not the warning you're
> trying to silence.
> 

Yeah, it will generate plenty of pointless warnings, although we still
can often find valuable bugs in these warnings.

Oh, I tried gcc 4.6.3-2 rhel version, get the same result as yours (do
not report warning), but for me, it is still a compiler's bug, it
*should* report a warning for it, we can try below:

 - modify zswap_get_swap_cache_page() to let it may return another value
   (one sample modification is in attachment)

 - compile again, it doesn't report related warning, either

 - in this case, it *should* report related warning.

Could you help to try it under gcc 4.7.2, thanks?


BTW: gcc really exists some bugs about uninitialized variable, e.g.

  one known bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
  kernel related: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57856


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water and life which God blessed

View attachment "diff.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (346 bytes)