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 12:51:33 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        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"

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:02:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > 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...
> > 
> > I will not be backporting this patch to older stable kernels, but I
> > _want_ to see stable builds build with no warnings.  When we add
> > warnings, they are almost always things we need to fix up properly.
> 
> Well, everyone _wants_ to see clean builds... unless the price is too
> high.
> 
> > Over time, I have worked to reduce the number of build warnings in older
> > stable kernels.  For newer versions of gcc, sometimes that is
> > impossible, but we are close...
> 
> You clearly can't backport this patch, but for 5.16-stable, you'll
> have it in, and now warnings are same as errors... and I don't believe
> that's good idea for stable.

I do, it will force us to keep these trees clean over time.

And it will be in 5.15, not 5.16 :)

Worst case, we disable it in 4 years when gcc 15 or so generates so
many errors we can't resolve them in this old kernel.

thanks,

greg k-h