linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 23:06:06 +0900
From:   Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK()

On Mon. 7 Mar 2022 at 22:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alexander Lobakin
> <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:08 +0200
> > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Vincent Mailhol
> > > <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This pattern is harmless but because it occurs in header files
> > > > (example find_first_bit() from linux/find.h [1]) and because of the
> > > > include hell, the macro GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() is accountable for 31%
> > > > (164714/532484) of all warnings when compiling all modules at W=2
> > > > level.
> >
> > Nice catch, thanks! I wanted to submit the very same fix, but
> > postponed it for some reason, and now here we are.
> >
> > > Have you fixed W=1 warnings?
> > > Without fixing W=1 (which makes much more sense, when used with
> > > WERROR=y && COMPILE_TEST=y) this has no value.
> >
> > How is this connected?
>
> By priorities.
> I don't see much value in fixing W=2 per se if the code doesn't compile for W=1.

*My code* compiles for W=1. For me, fixing this W=2 in the next in line
if speaking of priorities.

I do not understand why I should be forbidden to fix a W=2 in the
file which I am maintaining on the grounds that some code to which
I do not care still has some W=1.

> > When I do `make W=2 path/to/my/code`, I want to see the actual code
> > problems, not something that comes from the include files.
> > When I do `make W=2 path/to/new/code/from/lkml`, I want to see the
> > actual new warnings, not something coming from the includes.
> > It's much easier to overlook or miss some real warnings when the
> > stderr is being flooded by the warnings from the include files.
> > I'm aware there are some scripts to compare before/after, but I
> > don't want to use them just because "this has to value".
>
> I rephrased above.
>
> > I don't want to do `make W=2 KCFLAGS='-Wno-shadow -Wno-type-limits'`
> > because then I'm not able to spot the actual shadow or type limit
> > problems in my/new code.
> > I fixed several `-Wshadow` warnings previously in the include files
> > related to networking, and *nobody* said "this has no value" or
> > NAKed it. And `-Wshadow` has always been in W=2.
>
> Yes, because people rarely enable COMPILE_TEST + WERROR.
> To be clear, my comment is given in that scope.

And my comments are given in a different scope: a developer who
wants to solve the issue for his *own* file without being spammed.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol