linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Compile code with warnings enabled

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <66ad01c4-74ba-db0d-bbca-2b98e3984d43@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 May 2019 09:15:08 +0200
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Compile code with warnings enabled

On 17/05/2019 04.45, Peter Xu wrote:
> Hi, Thomas,
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:02:57PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> So far the KVM selftests are compiled without any compiler warnings
>> enabled. That's quite bad, since we miss a lot of possible bugs this
>> way. Let's enable at least "-Wall" and some other useful warning flags
>> now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  This patch fixes most of the warnings in the x86 code already - but
>>  for some warnings, I was not quite sure (e.g. about the need for the
>>  kvm_get_supported_cpuid_entry(1) in some tests), so I did not touch
> 
> If you mean the two calls in state_test and evmcs_test I would agree
> they should be dropped directly.

Yes, that were the once I had in mind. I'll drop them in v2.

> Just to mention that the patch may not apply cleanly to kvm/queue now
> probably because the dirty-log-test.c touchup recently, so may need a
> rebase.  Otherwise it looks nice at least to me to have these checks.

Ok, thanks for the hint, I'll rebase and send a v2.

 Thomas