linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized

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]

Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:29:00 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>, Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
CC:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <xiang@...nel.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro

On 2020/6/15 16:07, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 鍦?2020/6/15 15:25, Gao Xiang 鍐欓亾:
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:01:41PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
>>>> This is an effort to eliminate the uninitialized_var() macro[1].
>>>>
>>>> The use of this macro is the wrong solution because it forces off ANY
>>>> analysis by the compiler for a given variable. It even masks "unused
>>>> variable" warnings.
>>>>
>>>> Quoted from Linus[2]:
>>>>
>>>> "It's a horrible thing to use, in that it adds extra cruft to the
>>>> source code, and then shuts up a compiler warning (even the _reliable_
>>>> warnings from gcc)."
>>>>
>>>> The gcc option "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and this change
>>>> will not produce any warnnings even with "make W=1".
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/81
>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>> Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> I'm fine with the patch since "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and
>>> I've also asked Kees for it in private previously.
>>>
>>> I still remembered that Kees sent out a treewide patch. Sorry about that
>>> I don't catch up it... But what is wrong with the original patchset?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Kees has remind me of that and I will let him handle it. So you can
>> ignore this patch.
> 
> Okay, I was just wondering if this part should be send out via EROFS tree
> for this cycle. However if there was an automatic generated patch by Kees,
> I think perhaps Linus could pick them out directly. But anyway, both ways
> are fine with me. ;) Ping me when needed.

Either way is okay to me.

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
> 
> .
>