linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Kconfig: disable PROFILE_ALL

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: <20180216175011.2f18dfd6@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:50:11 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Yann E . MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@...e.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Kconfig: disable PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES for compile
 testing

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:40:22 +0100
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

>      ((CAPI_MSG *) msg)->info.facility_req.structs[1] =
> LI_REQ_SILENT_UPDATE & 0xff;
>      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/message.c:11163:54: error: array subscript
> is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds]
>      ((CAPI_MSG *) msg)->info.facility_req.structs[2] =
> LI_REQ_SILENT_UPDATE >> 8;
>      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/message.c:11164:54: error: array subscript
> is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds]
>      ((CAPI_MSG *) msg)->info.facility_req.structs[3] = 0;
> 
> All those are nonsense AFAICT, and we see them only because the "if()" override
> ends up confusing gcc's value-range tracking in the same way it used to cause
> lots of -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings (which we just disable these days
> with PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).

I'm fine with your patch then.

-- Steve