linux-kernel - Re: [bug report] cpumask: gcc 13.x emits compilation error on PowerPC

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fec6d8c4-d46d-4e1f-94fb-18f1f3b30f91@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:08:18 +0530
From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, yury.norov@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gregory Joyce <gjoyce@....com>,
        Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Subject: Re: [bug report] cpumask: gcc 13.x emits compilation error on PowerPC


Hi Brian,

On 11/12/24 02:27, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Nilay,
> 
> I'm responding here to try to help move things along for you, even
> though I'm not a maintainer here and don't have a strong (nor
> authoritative) opinion.
Thanks, I really appreciate your help:)
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 5:38 AM Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/24 23:30, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> IIUC, he was hoping for better compiler diagnostics to help out there.
>> Hmm ok
> 
> AFAICT, things aren't moving so fast there, so it might wise to try to
> silence the problem for now.
Okay
> 
>>> (Also, I imitated Thomas's .config notes from that report and couldn't
>>> reproduce with my GCC 13.2.0.)
>>>
>>> I also happen to see there are a few scattered instances of either
>>> disabling or working around -Wstringop-overread false positives in the
>>> tree today.
>>>
>> So shall we wait until we get better diagnostics from GCC or can we bypass this
>> error temporarily with either using __NO_FORTIFY (as I proposed  in my another
>> email) or disable -Wstringop-overread for kernel/padata.c file? Later when we
>> find a better fix, we may then revert this change.
> 
> If this warning is causing pain, then we should probably bypass it. I
> *think* there's less blast radius by simply disabling
> -Wstringop-overread for this file, but I'm not completely sure.
> 
Alright, I'll send a formal patch disabling stringop-overead for kernel/padata.c file.

Thanks,
--Nilay