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]

Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:09:12 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 5:03 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 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."

It would work for me if it had been
a) documented (I didn't check if it had been already done, though);
b) understood by all CIs in the same way (see a) as well :-).

That said, I like any compromise that will reduce unneeded spam for
submitted patches from CIs and, as a bonus, get rid of warnings in my
local compilations (yes, I usually do W=1).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko