linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: nand: Add on-die ECC support

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: <CAN8TOE8ggiXQDquWCHgnYojRt6bWiKTFr0r_teM=7r9aJ1k7OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:19:51 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Ben Shelton <ben.shelton@...com>,
	"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri 
	<punnaiah.choudary.kalluri@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: nand: Add on-die ECC support

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
> Am 28.04.2015 um 01:10 schrieb Brian Norris:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:
>>> Am 28.04.2015 um 00:53 schrieb Brian Norris:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:42:18AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>> Am 28.04.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Ben Shelton:
>>>>>>>> When I build this without CONFIG_MTD_NAND_ECC_ON_DIE enabled, I get the
>>>>>>>> following warning here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In file included from drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c:46:0:
>>>>>>>> include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h: In function 'nand_read_subpage_on_die':
>>>>>>>> include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h:28:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
>>>>>>>> include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h: In function 'nand_read_page_on_die':
>>>>>>>> include/linux/mtd/nand_ondie.h:34:1: warning: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps return an error code here, even though you'll never get past the BUG()?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What gcc is this?
>>>>>>> gcc 4.8 here does not warn, I thought it is smart enough that this function does never
>>>>>>> return. Can it be that your .config has CONFIG_BUG=n?
>>>>>>> Anyway, this functions clearly needs a return statement. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gcc 4.7.2, and you are correct that I had CONFIG_BUG off.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, just noticed that BUG() with CONFIG_BUG=n does not have
>>>>> a nonreturn attribute. So, gcc cannot know...
>>>>
>>>> But it's an obvious infinite loop... all of my toolchains (4.2, 4.5,
>>>> 4.6, 4.8) are able to compile this without complaining (gcc -Wall):
>>>>
>>>> int test() { do { } while (1); }
>>>
>>> Not here. gcc 4.8 warns on that.
>>> As soon I add __attribute__ ((noreturn)) it does not longer complain.
>>
>> Huh? Maybe I have a crazy modified gcc.
>>
>> $ gcc --version
>> gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) 4.8.2
>> Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
>> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>>
>> $ gcc -Wall -Wextra -c a.c
>> $ cat a.c
>> int test() { do {} while (1); }
>
> Make test static and gcc will warn.

Hmm. That's a strange distinction for gcc to make. Maybe because of
the potential for inlining? Still seems odd.
--
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/