linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds"

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:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:32:56 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel
 builds"

Hi!

> >>  config WERROR
> >>         bool "Compile the kernel with warnings as errors"
> >>-       default y
> >>+       default COMPILE_TEST
> >
> >That seems reasonable. It very much is about build-testing.
> 
> That and 2 more things IMO:
> 
> a. having developers be responsible for build warnings, not just
>    build errors
> 
> b. having maintainers merge them more like they are build errors
>    and not just some warnings that can be overlooked.
> 
> I don't see enough of a. or b.  :(

Do we really want developers treat warnings as errors? When the code
is okay but some random version of gcc dislikes it...

Plus, there's question of stable. We already get ton of churn there
("this fixes random warning"). WERROR will only encourage that...

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)