linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] selftests: Fix problems seen when building with -Werror

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: <20251204094320.7d4429d1@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 09:43:20 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Kees Cook
 <kees@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] selftests: Fix problems seen when building with
 -Werror

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 09:16:16 -0800 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 08:27:54AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu,  4 Dec 2025 08:17:14 -0800 Guenter Roeck wrote:  
> > > This series fixes build errors observed when trying to build selftests
> > > with -Werror.  
> > 
> > If your intention is to make -Werror the default please stop.
> > Defaulting WERROR to enabled is one of the silliest things we have done
> > in recent past.
> 
> No, that is not the idea, and not the intention.
> 
> The Google infrastructure builds the kernel, including selftests, with
> -Werror enabled. This triggers a number of build errors when trying to
> build selftests with the 6.18 kernel. That means I have three options:
> 1) Disable -Werror in selftest builds and accept that some real problems
>    will slip through. Not really a good option, and not acceptable.
> 2) Fix the problems in the upstream kernel and backport.
> 3) Fix the problems downstream only. Not really a good option but I guess
>    we'll have to do it if this series (and/or follow-up patches needed to
>    support glibc older than 2.36) is rejected.
> 
> We'll have to carry the patches downstream if 2) is rejected, but at
> the very least I wanted to give it a try.

Understood, of course we should fix the warnings!
If we're fixing warnings, tho, I wouldn't have mentioned -Werror in 
the _subject_. It doesn't affect which warnings are enabled, AFAIK?