linux-kernel - Re: [patch 10/32] linux/bits.h: fix unsigned less than zero warnings

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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3doveL3DxjcyiAqxNve07WfXYNTXK77Pbm70Dvyowg2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:03:38 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
        Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/32] linux/bits.h: fix unsigned less than zero warnings

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:24 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:37 PM Rikard Falkeborn
> <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com> wrote:
> > Den fre 26 juni 2020 08:32Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> skrev:
>
> ...
>
> > I'll just say no and point to this email next time someone complains instead.
>
> "No" is not constructive here. People can be annoyed with warning
> messages, but the real issue here are the various CI systems which
> send a lot of spam because of that. As a maintainer I would need to
> drop CI in order to see a good patch. If Linus considers that warning
> useless, then probably you can change your patch to do what he
> proposed.

How about moving that warning from W=1 to W=2? Generally speaking
I'd expect W=1 warnings to be in a category of "it's generally better to
address this in the code, but we can't turn it on by default because the
output gets too noisy", as opposed to W=2 meaning "this sometimes
finds a real problem, but fixing the warning often makes code worse."

     Arnd