linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checksyscalls: ignore -Wunused-macros

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, 25 Apr 2022 10:49:36 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checksyscalls: ignore -Wunused-macros

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:42 AM Vincent MAILHOL
<mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> On Mon. 25 Apr 2022 at 15:50, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:17 AM Vincent MAILHOL> <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> > > When I run W=2, I want to only see the warnings of the file I am
> > > working on. So I find it useful to fix the W=2 warnings which
> > > show up when building other files to not get spammed by
> > > irrelevant issues and to simplify the triage.
> > >
> > > My initial message lacked the rationale. I will add additional
> > > explanations in the v2 of this patch.
> >
> > I agree this is worth fixing if we want to make W=2 have any meaning at all.
> >
> > Your approach is probably fine. We could try to improve this by comparing
> > against the list from include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h instead of the i386
> > list. I suppose that would involve rewriting the script into a simpler one,
> > but I'm not sure if anyone has an interest in working on this.
>
> If someone wants to do it, great, but I do not have the
> confidence to do it myself so I hope you will forgive me for
> taking a pass here.

Sure, no worries.

> Another alternative I considered was to only call
> checksyscalls.sh when doing a 'make all'. This way, we keep the
> warning but people won’t be spammed when building sub projects
> because the script would not be executed.

Right, I like that as well, one less thing to be done for every
iterative make as well. The syscall table really doesn't change
all that much that this needs to be run by most developers.

      Arnd