kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

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

Message-ID: <20200615072521.GA25317@xiangao.remote.csb>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:25:21 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>
To: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
Cc: xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro

Hi Jason,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:01:41PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
> This is an effort to eliminate the uninitialized_var() macro[1].
> 
> The use of this macro is the wrong solution because it forces off ANY
> analysis by the compiler for a given variable. It even masks "unused
> variable" warnings.
> 
> Quoted from Linus[2]:
> 
> "It's a horrible thing to use, in that it adds extra cruft to the
> source code, and then shuts up a compiler warning (even the _reliable_
> warnings from gcc)."
> 
> The gcc option "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and this change
> will not produce any warnnings even with "make W=1".
> 
> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/81
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
> ---

I'm fine with the patch since "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" has been disabled and
I've also asked Kees for it in private previously.

I still remembered that Kees sent out a treewide patch. Sorry about that
I don't catch up it... But what is wrong with the original patchset?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.