linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

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: <20140922184049.GB4709@pd.tnic>
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:40:49 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
Cc:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"sparse@...isli.org" <sparse@...isli.org>,
	"linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:06:27PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> The problem is that the kernel include files throw so many warnings
> that it really discourages anyone from ever going through them, even
> for a single driver. The warnings are far more valuable and usable
> when known acceptable usages are silenced.

You can always do one file only, for example:

make W=2 arch/x86/kernel/msr.o > w.log 2>&1

> Well, the whole series of patches that I made definitely went too far
> - only the first 5 out of about 30 have been posted, but if we can
> make some progress on generating fewer warnings out of the include
> files, I think it would be helpful.

Helpful for what? Those are W=2 warnings which are disabled in the
default build.

> Already the patches that use them have triggered some activity that
> has resulted in resolving warnings without use of the macros, and I
> see that as much better than simply using the macros.
>
> The macros can serve a useful purpose, but they should not be widely
> used. When to use them is definitely a judgement call. If the macros
> are accepted, it may be worth adding a checkpatch.pl warning for
> adding a DIAG_*IGNORE macro.

Right, so add the macros and tell people *not* to use them. That won't
fly.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/