From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@redhat.com>, Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xiang@kernel.org,
linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:29:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4319ff76-c61f-e266-354f-83526207c767@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200615080714.GB25317@xiangao.remote.csb>
On 2020/6/15 16:07, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:43:09PM +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 鍦?2020/6/15 15:25, Gao Xiang 鍐欓亾:
>>> 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@chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.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?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Kees has remind me of that and I will let him handle it. So you can
>> ignore this patch.
>
> Okay, I was just wondering if this part should be send out via EROFS tree
> for this cycle. However if there was an automatic generated patch by Kees,
> I think perhaps Linus could pick them out directly. But anyway, both ways
> are fine with me. ;) Ping me when needed.
Either way is okay to me.
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gao Xiang
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-15 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-15 4:01 [PATCH] erofs: Eliminate usage of uninitialized_var() macro Jason Yan
2020-06-15 7:25 ` Gao Xiang
2020-06-15 7:43 ` Jason Yan
2020-06-15 8:07 ` Gao Xiang
2020-06-15 8:29 ` Chao Yu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4319ff76-c61f-e266-354f-83526207c767@huawei.com \
--to=yuchao0@huawei.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hsiangkao@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xiang@kernel.org \
--cc=yanaijie@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).