| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <38de6ac2-a7d8-41dc-a065-68ce60d5b662@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:24:06 +0200
From: Mirsad Todorovac <mtodorovac69@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM linux-next] fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:1147:13: error: variable ‘leaf_mi’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
On 8/5/24 15:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 02-08-24 18:31:46, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>> On 7/18/24 11:39, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Thu 18-07-24 00:14:24, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/24 17:44, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 16-07-24 19:17:05, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/24 19:28, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Mirsad!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed 10-07-24 20:09:27, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>>>>>>>> On the linux-next vanilla next-20240709 tree, I have attempted the seed KCONFIG_SEED=0xEE7AB52F
>>>>>>>> which was known from before to trigger various errors in compile and build process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though this might seem as contributing to channel noise, Linux refuses to build this config,
>>>>>>>> treating warnings as errors, using this build line:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> $ time nice make W=1 -k -j 36 |& tee ../err-next-20230709-01a.log; date
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I know that the Chief Penguin doesn't like warnings, but I am also aware that there are plenty
>>>>>>>> left, there seems to be more tedious work ahead to make the compilers happy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The compiler output is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘balance_leaf_new_nodes_paste_whole’:
>>>>>>>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:1147:13: error: variable ‘leaf_mi’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
>>>>>>>> 1147 | int leaf_mi;
>>>>>>>> | ^~~~~~~
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly, I wouldn't bother with reiserfs. The warning is there for ages,
>>>>>>> the code is going to get removed in two releases, so I guess we can live
>>>>>>> with these warnings for a few more months...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In essence I agree with you, but for sentimental reasons I would like to
>>>>>> keep it because it is my first journaling Linux system on Knoppix 🙂
>>>>>
>>>>> As much as I understand your sentiment (I have a bit of history with that
>>>>> fs as well) the maintenance cost isn't really worth it and most fs folks
>>>>> will celebrate when it's removed. We have already announced the removal
>>>>> year and half ago and I'm fully for executing that plan at the end of this
>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Patch is also simple and a no-brainer, as proposed by Mr. Cook:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------------------------><------------------------------------------
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>>>>>> index 5129efc6f2e6..fbe73f267853 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>>>>>> @@ -1144,7 +1144,9 @@ static void balance_leaf_new_nodes_paste_whole(struct tree_balance *tb,
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct buffer_head *tbS0 = PATH_PLAST_BUFFER(tb->tb_path);
>>>>>> int n = B_NR_ITEMS(tbS0);
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK
>>>>>> int leaf_mi;
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I would not like this even for actively maintained code ;) If you
>>>>> want to silence these warnings in this dead code, then I could live with
>>>>> something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> #if defined( CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK )
>>>>> #define RFALSE(cond, format, args...) __RASSERT(!(cond), ....)
>>>>> #else
>>>>> - #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do {;} while( 0 )
>>>>> + #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void)cond; } while( 0 )
>>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> Yes, one line change is much smarter than 107 line patch of mine :-)
>>>>
>>>> Verified, and this line solved all the warnings:
>>>>
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/bitmap.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/do_balan.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/namei.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/inode.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/file.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/dir.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/fix_node.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/super.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/prints.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/objectid.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/lbalance.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/ibalance.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/stree.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/hashes.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/tail_conversion.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/journal.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/resize.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/item_ops.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/ioctl.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/xattr.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/lock.o
>>>> CC fs/reiserfs/procfs.o
>>>> AR fs/reiserfs/built-in.a
>>>>
>>>> Just FWIW, back then in year 2000/2001 a journaling file system on my
>>>> Knoppix box was a quantum leap - it would simply replay the journal if
>>>> there was a power loss before shutdown. No several minutes of fsck.
>>>
>>> Well, there was also ext3 at that time already :-) That's where I became
>>> familiar with the idea of journalling. Reiserfs was interesting to me
>>> because of completely different approach to on-disk format (b-tree with
>>> formatted items), packing of small files / file tails (interesting in 2000,
>>> not so much 20 years later) and reasonable scalability for large
>>> directories.
>>>
>>>> I think your idea is great and if you wish a patch could be submitted
>>>> after the merge window.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to you. If the warnings annoy you, send the patch along
>>> the lines I've proposed (BTW (void)cond should better be (void)(cond) for
>>> macro safety) and I'll push it to Linus.
>>>
>>> Honza
>>
>> Hi, Jan,
>>
>> After a short break, I just tried a full build with this hack against the vanilla
>> linux-next tree:
>>
>> #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void)(cond); } while( 0 )
>>
>> and it breaks at least here:
>>
>> In file included from fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:15:
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘balance_leaf_when_delete_del’:
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:28: error: ‘ih’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>> 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0],
>> | ^~
>> fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’
>> 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> | ^~~~
>> ./include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:91:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘__le16_to_cpu’
>> 91 | #define le16_to_cpu __le16_to_cpu
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:16: note: in expansion of macro ‘ih_item_len’
>> 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0],
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:28: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>> 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0],
>> | ^~
>> fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’
>> 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> | ^~~~
>> ./include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:91:21: note: in expansion of macro ‘__le16_to_cpu’
>> 91 | #define le16_to_cpu __le16_to_cpu
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:86:16: note: in expansion of macro ‘ih_item_len’
>> 86 | RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0],
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c: In function ‘do_balance_starts’:
>> fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c:1800:16: error: implicit declaration of function ‘check_before_balancing’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> 1800 | RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB");
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’
>> 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> | ^~~~
>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>> make[7]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:244: fs/reiserfs/do_balan.o] Error 1
>> CC [M] fs/reiserfs/stree.o
>> In file included from fs/reiserfs/stree.c:15:
>> fs/reiserfs/stree.c: In function ‘reiserfs_delete_item’:
>> fs/reiserfs/stree.c:1283:24: error: ‘mode’ undeclared (first use in this function)
>> 1283 | RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE");
>> | ^~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’
>> 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> | ^~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/stree.c:1283:24: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>> 1283 | RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE");
>> | ^~~~
>> fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h:919:54: note: in definition of macro ‘RFALSE’
>> 919 | #define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> | ^~~~
>>
>> Last time it compiled, but now it expects variables in (void)(cond) expressions to be defined.
>>
>> I have try to fix those warnings, submitting the patch for review:
>
> Yeah, this looks ok to me.
>
> Honza
Hi, Jan,
As I understood from the previous experiences, and the Code of Conduct, and explicit Reviwed-by:
or Acked-by: is required ...
Or otherwise, the Suggested-by: is used?
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Mirsad Todorovac
>> -------------------><---------------------------------------
>> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>> index 5129efc6f2e6..c8fa3d71ef63 100644
>> --- a/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>> @@ -81,11 +81,11 @@ static void balance_leaf_when_delete_del(struct tree_balance *tb)
>> struct buffer_info bi;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK
>> struct item_head *ih = item_head(tbS0, item_pos);
>> -#endif
>>
>> RFALSE(ih_item_len(ih) + IH_SIZE != -tb->insert_size[0],
>> "vs-12013: mode Delete, insert size %d, ih to be deleted %h",
>> -tb->insert_size[0], ih);
>> +#endif
>>
>> buffer_info_init_tbS0(tb, &bi);
>> leaf_delete_items(&bi, 0, item_pos, 1, -1);
>> @@ -1797,8 +1797,8 @@ static inline void do_balance_starts(struct tree_balance *tb)
>> print_tb(flag, PATH_LAST_POSITION(tb->tb_path),
>> tb->tb_path->pos_in_item, tb, "check");
>> */
>> - RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB");
>> #ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK
>> + RFALSE(check_before_balancing(tb), "PAP-12340: locked buffers in TB");
>> REISERFS_SB(tb->tb_sb)->cur_tb = tb;
>> #endif
>> }
>> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h b/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h
>> index f0e1f29f20ee..027e64853710 100644
>> --- a/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h
>> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.h
>> @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ do { \
>> #if defined( CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK )
>> #define RFALSE(cond, format, args...) __RASSERT(!(cond), "!(" #cond ")", format, ##args)
>> #else
>> -#define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do {;} while( 0 )
>> +#define RFALSE( cond, format, args... ) do { (void) (cond); } while( 0 )
>> #endif
>>
>> #define CONSTF __attribute_const__
>> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/stree.c b/fs/reiserfs/stree.c
>> index 5faf702f8d15..eed1a461169e 100644
>> --- a/fs/reiserfs/stree.c
>> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/stree.c
>> @@ -1280,7 +1280,9 @@ int reiserfs_delete_item(struct reiserfs_transaction_handle *th,
>> &del_size,
>> max_reiserfs_offset(inode));
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_REISERFS_CHECK
>> RFALSE(mode != M_DELETE, "PAP-5320: mode must be M_DELETE");
>> +#endif
>>
>> copy_item_head(&s_ih, tp_item_head(path));
>> s_del_balance.insert_size[0] = del_size;
>> --
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mirsad Todorovac
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists