linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] static_call: Fix unused variable warning

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]

Message-ID: <20210422180149.GA107132@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:01:49 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call: Fix unused variable warning

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 06:13:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:01:47AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 4/22/21 12:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 08:41:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Second patch with the exact same update. Perhaps we should take one
> > >> before we get more of them ;-)
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I thought we already fixed that...
> > 
> > Not in v5.12-rc8-6-g4bdafe832681, which is ToT right now.
> > 
> > Ah, I do see it in -next, but that doesn't help me in mainline,
> > nor in stable branches where the patch introducing the problem
> > has been backported to.
> 
> Given it's a silly warning I didn't figure it was urgent material. I
> suppose we can backport it if someone (you apperntly) cares.

We build release images with -Werror, and some of those images have
CONFIG_MODULES=n. So this wasn't silly for us. It was catastrophic
for the affected images. We already applied my proposed fix, so it
isn't specifically urgent for us anymore. However, the presence of
such "silly" warnings in stable releases (and backporting of patches
introducing such warnings into stable releases) gives ammunition
to those arguing that we should not merge stable releases because
they introduce regressions. And your statement that the warning is
"silly" doesn't help either, sorry.

Guenter