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  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:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:39:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] kbuild: Disable -Waddress-of-packed-member for gcc

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> >
> > From: Andi Kleen <>
> >
> > This warning is very noisy in a default build with gcc 9.
> > Move it into W=2 only.
> >
> > Cc:
> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <>
> I think W=2 is too aggressive. On many architectures, this finds
> real bugs and the false positives tend to be trivial to fix
> (by removing the bogus __packed annotation), which improves
> the generated code in the process.
> Moving it to W=1 for the moment is probably fine, but ideally
> I think we should fix the kernel to behave according to the
> C standard.

Lol... we're actively moving away from the C standard on many places.

Why does the silly compiler think it is a problem to take the address of
a member of a packed structure? That sounds like something that's
perfectly fine and useful.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists