linux-kernel - Re: Linux 6.3-rc3

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, 20 Mar 2023 11:53:37 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc3

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:26:17AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:05 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On the clang front, I am still seeing the following warning turned error
> > for arm64 allmodconfig at least:
> >
> >   drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c:520:6: error: variable 'syncpt_irq' is uninitialized when used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized]
> >           if (syncpt_irq < 0)
> >               ^~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Hmm. I do my arm64 allmodconfig builds with gcc, and I'm surprised
> that gcc doesn't warn about this.

Perhaps these would make doing allmodconfig builds with clang more
frequently less painful for you?

https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/20230319235619.GA18547@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/

> That syncpt_irq thing isn't written to anywhere, so that's pretty egregious.
> 
> We use -Wno-maybe-uninitialized because gcc gets it so wrong, but
> that's different from the "-Wuninitialized" thing (without the
> "maybe").
> 
> I've seen gcc mess this up when there is one single assignment,
> because then the SSA format makes it *so* easy to just use that
> assignment out-of-order (or unconditionally), but this case looks
> unusually clear-cut.
> 
> So the fact that gcc doesn't warn about it is outright odd.
> 
> > If that does not come to you through other means before -rc4, could you
> > just apply it directly so that I can stop applying it to our CI? :)
> 
> Bah. I took it now, there's no excuse for that thing.

Thanks!

> Do we have any gcc people around that could explain why gcc failed so
> miserably at this trivial case?

Cc'ing linux-toolchains. The start of the thread is here:

https://lore.kernel.org/CAHk-=wgSqpdkeJBb92M37JNTdRQJRnRUApraHKE8uGHTqQuu2Q@mail.gmail.com/

The problematic function before the fix is here:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/host1x/dev.c?id=3d3699bde4b043eea17993e4e76804a8128f0fdb#n487

I will see if I have some cycles to try and reduce something out for the
GCC folks.

Cheers,
Nathan