linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement

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:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:24:05 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:50:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:24:47 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:38:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:35:35 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Newly added static_assert() is formally a declaration, which will give
> > > > a warning if used in the middle of the function.
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > @@ -792,9 +792,6 @@ endif
> > > >  # arch Makefile may override CC so keep this after arch Makefile is included
> > > >  NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include)
> > > >  
> > > > -# warn about C99 declaration after statement
> > > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> > > > -
> > > >  # Variable Length Arrays (VLAs) should not be used anywhere in the kernel
> > > >  KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wvla)
> > > 
> > > I do wish your changelogs were more elaborate :(
> > 
> > > So the proposal is to disable -Wdeclaration-after-statement in all
> > > cases for all time because static_assert() doesn't work correctly?
> > 
> > Yes. I converted 2 cases in /proc to static_assert() and you can't write
> > 
> > 	{
> > 		[code]
> > 		static_assert()
> > 	}
> > 
> > without a warning because static_assert() is declaration.
> > So people would move BUILD_BUG_ON() to where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > > Surely there's something we can do to squish the static_assert() issue
> > > while retaining -Wdeclaration-after-statement?
> > 
> > It is not good in my opinion to stick to -Wdeclaration-after-statement.
> 
> Why?
> 
> > > Perhaps by making
> > > static_assert() a nop if -Wdeclaration-after-statement is in use. 
> > > Perhaps simply by putting { } around the static_assert()?
> > 
> > Making a statement out of it would disable current cases where it is
> > placed in headers.
> 
> I think you mean cases where static_assert() is used outside functions?
> 
> We could have two versions of it, one for use inside functions, one for
> use outside functions?

I don't know. It was made a declaration in the standard specifically
to have only one name which is a good thing.

Just count the number of BUILD_BUG_* variants, it is ridiculous for such
a simple thing. Or even better, all *alloc* variants. :^)