linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for 6.10-rc1

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: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:45:10 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, 
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.10-rc1

On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 06:43, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 23:21, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is the main pull request for the drm subsystems for 6.10.
>
> .. and now that I look more at this pull request, I find other things wrong.
>
> Why is the DRM code asking if I want to enable -Werror? I have Werror
> enabled *already*.
>
> I hate stupid config questions. They only confuse users.
>
> If the global WERROR config is enabled, then the DRM config certainly
> shouldn't ask whether you want even more -Werror. It does nothing but
> annoy people.
>
> And no, we are not going to have subsystems that can *weaken* the
> existing CONFIG_WERROR. Happily, that doesn't seem to be what the DRM
> code wants to do, it just wants to add -Werror, but as mentioned, its'
> crazy to do that when we already have it globally enabled.
>
> Now, it might make more sense to ask if you want -Wextra. A lot of
> those warnings are bogus.

The help says:

          The drm subsystem enables more warnings than the kernel default, so
          this config option is disabled by default.

It's also

depends on DRM && EXPERT

so we aren't throwing it at random users.

should we rename it CONFIG_DRM_WERROR_MORE or something?

Dave.