From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755499Ab0HXPpv (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:45:51 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.17.162]:55603 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753313Ab0HXPpt (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:45:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:47:41 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Boyd , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: uaccess: Implement strict user copy checks Message-ID: <20100824154740.GD2160@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <4C61EE55.5030506@codeaurora.org> <201008191309.15425.arnd@arndb.de> <20100824150655.GB2160@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <201008241726.08797.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201008241726.08797.arnd@arndb.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2010, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > (Taking Martin and Heiko on Cc for s390) > > > > > > I'd strongly suggest making the behavior the same for everyone. It should > > > be fairly easy to make sure none of these warnings ever triggers > > > on s390, because most of the Linux device driver code does not get build > > > there anyway. > > > > Please don't do that. An s390 allyesconfig still triggers 45 warnings and > > I'm currently not willing to "patch" working code just to get rid of these > > warnings which are most likely all false positives. > > That's the reason why we currently don't error out and only generate > > warnings. > > Can't you just turn that option off then? Or are you worried about > allyesconfig builds? I'd like to keep an allyesconfig compiling and booting. With the proposed change we would never see a green entry at http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ for s390's allyesconfig build ;) And it would make it a bit harder to find the usual !HAS_DMA and !HAS_IOMEM build breakages we see quite frequently. No reason to make it even more difficult to keep s390 compiling. > The current state is confusing because on s390 > CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS means that gcc will warn rather > than ignore the finding, while on all others, the same option turns > a warning into an error. Then maybe add a "choice" Kconfig option in a way that both allyesconfig as well as allnoconfig will build? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com (Heiko Carstens) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:47:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: uaccess: Implement strict user copy checks In-Reply-To: <201008241726.08797.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4C61EE55.5030506@codeaurora.org> <201008191309.15425.arnd@arndb.de> <20100824150655.GB2160@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <201008241726.08797.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20100824154740.GD2160@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2010, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > (Taking Martin and Heiko on Cc for s390) > > > > > > I'd strongly suggest making the behavior the same for everyone. It should > > > be fairly easy to make sure none of these warnings ever triggers > > > on s390, because most of the Linux device driver code does not get build > > > there anyway. > > > > Please don't do that. An s390 allyesconfig still triggers 45 warnings and > > I'm currently not willing to "patch" working code just to get rid of these > > warnings which are most likely all false positives. > > That's the reason why we currently don't error out and only generate > > warnings. > > Can't you just turn that option off then? Or are you worried about > allyesconfig builds? I'd like to keep an allyesconfig compiling and booting. With the proposed change we would never see a green entry at http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/9/ for s390's allyesconfig build ;) And it would make it a bit harder to find the usual !HAS_DMA and !HAS_IOMEM build breakages we see quite frequently. No reason to make it even more difficult to keep s390 compiling. > The current state is confusing because on s390 > CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS means that gcc will warn rather > than ignore the finding, while on all others, the same option turns > a warning into an error. Then maybe add a "choice" Kconfig option in a way that both allyesconfig as well as allnoconfig will build?