linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init/Kconfig: extend -Wno-array-bounds to gcc 13

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: <e7eef530-16b8-0a5d-273d-98aa3f673e61@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 05:28:53 -0800
From:   Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
        thunder.leizhen@...wei.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
        vbabka@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/Kconfig: extend -Wno-array-bounds to gcc 13


On 3/7/23 3:42 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:07 AM Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com> wrote:
>> The build with fail generally with gcc 13.
>>
>> The warnings could be cleaned without having an error, but I looked at
>> multiple errors, none of them were real.
>>
>> imo this is a broken compiler option.
> I am not sure I understand -- my reading of Kees' message is that he
> would prefer to get the warning (rather than the kernel) fixed before
> GCC 13 releases.

yes, that would be ideal.

But anyone using gcc 13 in the meanwhile will have a broken build

and any other aspect of testing the kernel with gcc 13 would have

to be deferred to after the fix, if it happens.

>
> Are you asking to have the option disabled until GCC 13 releases and
> reevaluate then? How many warnings are you getting? Are those actual
> errors or `-Werror`?

With W=1, there are 40 error:'s, sorry I do not have the default logs at 
hand.

I looked about 10 of them over the weekend, they we all bogus.

So gcc needs to be fixed first, just disabling with -Wnoerror will

give folks bad problems that do not need fixing.


I am asking that we at least temporarily disable this option so

the build break is fixed.

Tom

>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
>