linux-kernel - Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel

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:   Thu, 01 Feb 2018 22:27:44 +0300
From:   Ozgur <o@...r.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ozan Alpay <ozyalpy@...il.com>
Cc:     "sil2review@...ts.osadl.org" <sil2review@...ts.osadl.org>,
        "kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org" <kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "llvmlinux@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <llvmlinux@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        "lukas.bulwahn@...il.com" <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel_ddi.c:1481



01.02.2018, 21:03, "Greg KH" <greg@...ah.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 06:33:30PM +0100, Ozan Alpay wrote:
>>  Dear Rodrigo Vivi, Ville Syrjälä,
>>
>>  My name is Ozan Alpay, and I am a student mentored by Lukas Bulwahn. We

Hi Ozan,

why did you send e-mail to kernel development e-mail list?

>>  intend to use static analysis tools on the kernel source to identify,
>>  analyze and report issues. As a very first step, we are looking into
>>  clang compiler warnings and will then move to more sophisticated tools.
>>
>>  When compiling Linux 4.15 with clang, we have discovered that your commit
>>  2952cd6fb4cc ("drm/i915: Let's use more enum intel_dpll_id pll_id.")
>>  introduced the following warning:
>>
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c:1481:30: warning: implicit conversion from enumeration type 'enum port' to different enumeration type 'enum intel_dpll_id' [-Wenum-conversion]
>>          enum intel_dpll_id pll_id = port;
>>
>>  To reproduce it, you can compile Linux 4.15 with clang with this command:
>>
>>  make HOSTCC=clang-5.0 defconfig && make -j32 HOSTCC=clang-5.0 CC=clang-5.0
>>
>>  If you don't have clang installed in your system, you can use this simple
>>  docker setup to compile the kernel with clang:
>>
>>  wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bulwahn/linux-kernel-analysis/master/docker/kernel-clang/Dockerfile && \
>>  docker build -t kernel-clang . && \
>>  docker run -v <your kernel source directory>:/linux/ kernel-clang /bin/sh -c "cd linux && make CC=clang-5.0 clean && make HOSTCC=clang-5.0 defconfig && make -j32 HOSTCC=clang-5.0 CC=clang-5.0"
>>
>>  While we were doing our analysis on 4.15, we noticed that you already
>>  resolved this warning on linux-next with your work in commit bb911536f07e
>>  ("drm/i915: Eliminate pll->state usage from bxt_calc_pll_link()"). So,
>>  since it is resolved on linux-next and we expect that this commit will be
>>  merged in the merge window for 4.16, there is probably nothing further to
>>  do.
>>
>>  Linux 4.15 is shipped with this clang warning, but we don't see the
>>  crucial need to provide a backport commit to the stable branch for 4.15.
>>  We just wanted to inform you about our analysis of this clang warning.
>>  Ultimately the final call if you would like to address this clang warning
>>  in 4.15 is yours.
>
> Note, I have not taken "clang warning fixes" for stable kernel updates
> in the past, and I doubt I will in the future, unless the tree "builds
> clean" with clang. If it eventually gets there, then yes, I will do
> that.
>
> Note, if you are going to email this out to everyone who fixes a warning
> message, you might want to reconsider it. That's going to be a lot of
> work, and for people who have already fixed an issue, it's kind of
> pointless to just remind them of work they have done in the past, right?
>
> What is the goal of these types of emails?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Ozgur