linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] dtc updates for 4.12

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:55:22 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dtc updates for 4.12

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>> This series syncs dtc with current mainline. The primary motivation is
>> to pull in the new checks I've worked on. This gives lots of new
>> warnings which are turned off by default.
>>
>> Arm-soc folks, I've left the PCI checks enabled as they are pretty much
>> all real errors and there aren't that many (about 1200, but that's lots
>> of duplicates). I have a patch for some of them.
>
> Yay for better warnings!
>
> But as with all changes of this kind, when new warnings are introduced
> please give people some time to remove them without turning them on by
> default. We had a cycle like that already.

Which I quickly fixed and learned my lesson. That's why I tried
getting this out earlier as well.

> Main reason is that it becomes too hard to spot new warnings when they
> come in if the logs are flooded with 1200 existing warnings.

Yeah. Since almost everything is an include, the warnings really multiply.

> How many of them do you have patches for, per chance? If we can see
> them show up quickly the answer to the above might be a bit different.

Okay, I lied or lost them... It looks like it is 79 unique warnings
for arm. I'll take a stab at fixing them.

Rob