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: <202006260817.25D0459@keescook>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:21:00 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        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>,
        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 04:43:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:03 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > 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 :-).
> 
> I checked the 'make help' output, which describes them as
> 
> make W=n   [targets] Enable extra build checks, n=1,2,3 where
>    1: warnings which may be relevant and do not occur too often
>    2: warnings which occur quite often but may still be relevant
>    3: more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored
>    Multiple levels can be combined with W=12 or W=123
> 
> which is less specific than the interpretation I had in mind but
> I think still fits a).

How about tweaking this as:

make W=n   [targets] Enable extra build checks, n=1,2,3 where
   1: warnings which may be relevant and do not occur too often
      and can normally be fixed in code. (Reasonable for CIs to
      use without generating too much spam.)
   2: warnings which occur quite often but may still be relevant
      to developers looking for ways to improve compilers or
      looking for very special cases. (Not usually a good idea
      for automated systems.)
   3: more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored but have
      value to some very narrow areas of code/compiler analysis.
      Very noisy!



-- 
Kees Cook