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, 1 Apr 2019 10:04:34 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Andi Kleen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] kbuild: Disable -Waddress-of-packed-member for gcc 9


On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:59 PM 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.
>       Arnd

I agree to disable this warning option
since we see a lot of instances.

The room of argument is W=1 or W=2?
I do not have a strong opinion either way.

Arnd most actively takes care of warnings like this.
If he looks into these warnings, W=1 is fine with me.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Powered by blists - more mailing lists