linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf/core.c - silence warning messages

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9865.1548718516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:16 -0500
From:   valdis.kletnieks@...edu
To:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>
cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf/core.c - silence warning messages

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:18:45 -0800, Song Liu said:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:43 PM <valdis.kletnieks@...edu> wrote:

> > The attached patch silences the warnings, because we *know* we're overwriting
> > the default initializer. That leaves bpf/core.c with only 6 other warnings,
> > which become more visible in comparison.
>
> My concern is that this will also mute the warning for other parts of
> bpf/core.c.

I checked and there weren't any warnings for other parts of the file.  Also, this message
doesn't even happen unless you build with W=1, which apparently happens so rarely
that nobody else has submitted a patch.

Is there a high likelihood that another overwrite of an initializer is going to
be included in the source?

> Maybe we should move bpf_opcode_in_insntable() to a separate file, and mute
> warning for that file?

Seems to be overkill - the intent of this patch was mostly to make the *other*
warnings issued with W=1 more noticable.