linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp

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:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:16:19 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Avoid clang warnings around setjmp and longjmp

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nathan Chancellor
<natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:01:14AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't think this would be unreasonable. Are you referring to the
> > > cc-disable-warning flags or the -fno-builtin flags? I personally think
> > > the -fno-builtin flags convey to clang what the kernel is intending to
> > > do better than disabling the warnings outright.
> >
> > The `-f` family of flags have dire implications for codegen, I'd
> > really prefer we think long and hard before adding/removing them to
> > suppress warnings.  I don't think it's a solution for this particular
> > problem.
>
> I am fine with whatever approach gets this warning fixed to the
> maintainer's satisfaction...
>
> However, I think that -fno-builtin-* would be appropriate here because
> we are providing our own setjmp implementation, meaning clang should not
> be trying to do anything with the builtin implementation like building a
> declaration for it.

That's a good reason IMO.  IIRC, the -fno-builtin-* flags don't warn
if * is some unrecognized value, so -fno-builtin-setjmp may not
actually do anything, and you may need to scan the source (of clang or
llvm).

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers