linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.18

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]

Message-ID: <Yj4BjjCFGMjhzKk+@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 19:53:18 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.18

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:29:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > What about old one? I have already complained in the early discussion that
> > `make W=1 ...` is broken by this change.
> 
> So that is REALLY D*MN EASY TO FIX.
> 
> If you use W=1, and don't want WERROR, then don't *do* that then.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> But that's on _you_. Not on the build system. If you use W=1 and
> WERROR together, you get exactly what you asked for. It might even be
> what you wanted, if you want to go through the warnings/errors as you
> encounter them, instead of building everything.
> 
> And that's why I refuse to take the completely broken "strip out one
> or the other automatically" change.
> 
> It's a perfectly valid combination to enable both.
> 
> But more importantly, -Werror is more important than W=1. So if
> anything should be disabled, it's W=1.
> 
> Side note: that would be trivial to just have in the Kconfig files if
> W=1 was just a config option.
> 
> Do something like
> 
>      config EXTRA_ERRORS
>          int "Add extra compiler errors" if EXPERT
>          depends on !WERROR
>          range 0-2
>          default 0
> 
> but note again: WERROR should be the thing that controls this and
> should be on by default, not the other way around.
> 
> If you want EXTRA_ERRORS, you should not only be CONFIG_EXPERT, you
> should also have to manually disable WERROR that *normal* people
> should have on by default.

I have got your point, thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko