[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZu9Nvkp3PdSeLHQ@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:15:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@...onical.com>
Cc: jpoimboe@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] objtool: Make objtool check actually fatal upon
fatal errors
* Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@...onical.com> wrote:
> Currently function calls within check() are sensitive to fatal errors
> (negative return codes) and abort execution prematurely. However, in
> all such cases the check() function still returns 0, and thus
> resulting in a successful kernel build.
>
> The only correct code paths were the ones that escpae the control flow
> with `return ret`.
>
> Make the check() function return `ret` status code, and make all
> negative return codes goto that instruction. This makes fatal errors
> (not warnings) from various function calls actually fail the
> build. E.g. if create_retpoline_sites_sections() fails to create elf
> section pair retpoline_sites the tool now exits with an error code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@...onical.com>
So, is this not expected to be the case anymore:
> out:
> - /*
> - * For now, don't fail the kernel build on fatal warnings. These
> - * errors are still fairly common due to the growing matrix of
> - * supported toolchains and their recent pace of change.
> - */
> - return 0;
?
How about making it only fatal if CONFIG_WERROR=y, ie. an analogue to our
treatment of compiler warnings?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists