linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] kbuild: remove gcc's -Wtype-limits

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: <CAHk-=wjrNyuMfkU2RHs28TbFGSORk45mkjtzqeB7uhYJx33Vuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:34:05 +1200
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, 
	Nicolas Schier <nsc@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>, 
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kbuild: remove gcc's -Wtype-limits

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 08:26, David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>
> One possibility is to conditionally add _Pragma()

No. That compiler warning is pure and utter garbage. I have pointed it
out fopr *years*, and compiler people don't get it.

So that warning just needs to die. It's shit. It's wrong.

The sparse patch points out that this *can* be done correctly if you a
compiler person doesn't have their head up their arse.

(And no, I'm not claiming the sparse patch is perfect. I'm only
claiming the sparse patch is _much_ better. Bit tt could be better
still, and there could be other valid cases that could be warned for).

The "warn on type limits" is idiotic. It expects programmers to have
to always track what the exact type limits are, instead of just
writing safe and obvious code, and it warns about *good* code and.

It's exactly the *wrong* kind of thing to warn about.

               Linus