linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] objtool fixes and updates

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]

Message-ID: <Z-q9qbTGxNGICG4c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:07:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] objtool fixes and updates


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:39:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'm wondering why LKP didn't pick up the primary warning, only the 
> > final warning that skips duplicate warnings, which is kinda totally 
> > useless in isolation:
> 
> At least it alerted us to the other loongarch warnings we hadn't seen ;-)

There's that :-)

> >     `-- arch-loongarch-kernel-traps.o:warning:objtool:show_stack:skipping-duplicate-warning(s)
> >
> > Maybe we should just do what is below - output a single warning, a bit 
> > like lockdep.
> 
> Yeah, "skipping duplicate warnings" isn't technically a warning so it 
> probably shouldn't be presented as one.
> 
> I'll just revert 0a7fb6f07e3a and go back to the simple "one warning 
> per function" which worked fine before.

Thanks! Our experience with lockdep is that the fewer warnings per 
build/bootup, the better: the value of secondary warnings is 
diminishing, sometimes even negative.

It might even be OK to generate just one objtool warning per .o file.

	Ingo