linux-kernel - Re: v3.18.86 build: 0 failures 1 warnings (v3.18.86)

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: <20180103095416.GD28246@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:54:16 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Build bot for Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Kernel Build Reports Mailman List 
        <kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
        "# 3.18.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: v3.18.86 build: 0 failures 1 warnings (v3.18.86)

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 12:24:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Build bot for Mark Brown
> <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > x86_64-defconfig : PASS, 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 section mismatches
> >
> > Warnings:
> >         ../include/linux/ftrace.h:632:36: warning: calling '__builtin_return_address' with a nonzero argument is unsafe [-Wframe-address]
> >         ../include/linux/ftrace.h:632:36: warning: calling '__builtin_return_address' with a nonzero argument is unsafe [-Wframe-address]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This warning keeps coming up in 3.18 and 4.1 builds, which lack a backport of
> 
> ef6000b4c670 ("Disable the __builtin_return_address() warning globally
> after all")
> 
> The other build bots use different gcc versions that don't report the
> warning here,
> so only Mark's bot triggers it. The warning in this file is harmless,
> and the patch
> only turns off the warning flag.

Ah, I tried to figure this one out in the past, thanks for this, I'll
queue it up soon.  Hm, this isn't in 4.4.y, why is it not showing up
there?  Due to a different backport of this type of thing?

odd,

greg k-h