netdev - Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-08-10

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQK589CZN1Q9w8huJqkEyEed+ZMTWqcpA1Rm2CjN3a4XoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:06:52 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-08-10

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 9:18 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 20:53:57 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:06:24 +0200 Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
> >
> > Could you follow up before we send the PR to Linus if this is legit?
> >
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5089:5: warning: no previous prototype for function 'kern_sys_bpf' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > int kern_sys_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
> >     ^
> > kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5089:1: note: declare 'static' if the function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
> > int kern_sys_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
>
> Looking at the code it seems intentional, even if questionable.
> I wish BPF didn't have all these W=1 warnings, I always worry
> we'll end up letting an real one in since the CI only compares
> counts and the counts seem to fluctuate.

Yeah. It is intentional.
We used all sorts of hacks to shut up this pointless warning.
Just grep for __diag_ignore_all("-Wmissing-prototypes
in two files already.
Here I've opted for the explicit hack and the comment.
Pushed this fix to bpf tree:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=4e4588f1c4d2e67c993208f0550ef3fae33abce4

Please consider pulling these changes from:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git