linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.18 104/105] IB/nes: Fix a compiler warning

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:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:39:53 +0000
From:   Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18 104/105] IB/nes: Fix a compiler warning

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:03:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 19:59 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 13:34 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > > 3.18-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> >
>> > Why should this sort of change be applied to a stable release?
>>
>> Originally I was just going to drop this as it's not fixing something.
>>
>> But it might be, if that macro is used in a if() statement, or something
>> like that, it could be doing something unintended.
>
>No it couldn't.
>An empty macro is equivalent to a single statement.
>
>> So I don't feel like auditing all 500+ instances where this is used,
>> it's easier to just accept the patch.
>
>It's not a bug fix.

This question came up a few months ago. Greg suggested that we should be
pulling in warning fixes to get the stable kernels warning-free similar
to upstream.

The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of
upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless"
warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues.

So I was taking warning fixes even if they are of the harmless kind just
to get rid of warnings in stable branches.

--
Thanks,
Sasha