[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a10d8hgBiO5W=34oLqw8m22=Xi4C=MxVSY_fGnXZUJ3iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 22:39:47 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>,
Ning Sun <ning.sun@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Simon Kelley <simon@...kelleys.org.uk>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anders Larsen <al@...rsen.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86: tboot: avoid Wstringop-overread-warning
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:29 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> This is indeed rather ugly - and the other patch that removes a debug
> check seems counterproductive as well.
>
> Do we know how many genuine bugs -Wstringop-overread-warning has
> caught or is about to catch?
>
> I.e. the real workaround might be to turn off the -Wstringop-overread-warning,
> until GCC-11 gets fixed?
See the [PATCH 0/11] message. The last two patches in the series are for
code that I suspect may be broken, the others are basically all false positives.
As gcc-11 is not released yet, I don't think we have to apply any of the
patches or disable the warning at the moment, but I posted all the patches
to get a better understanding on which of them should be addressed in
the kernel vs gcc.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists