On 7/28/19 10:31 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 7/28/19 12:14 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Gustavo,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:42:28AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On 7/28/19 8:58 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:46:17PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Now that all the fall-through warnings have been addressed in the
kernel, enable the fall-through warning globally.
Not really "all".
powerpc:85xx/sbc8548_defconfig:
arch/powerpc/kernel/align.c: In function ‘emulate_spe’:
arch/powerpc/kernel/align.c:178:8: error: this statement may fall through
Plus many more similar errors in the same file.
All sh builds:
arch/sh/kernel/disassemble.c: In function 'print_sh_insn':
arch/sh/kernel/disassemble.c:478:8: error: this statement may fall through
Again, this is seen in several places.
mips:cavium_octeon_defconfig:
arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-usb.c: In function 'dwc3_octeon_clocks_start':
include/linux/device.h:1499:2: error: this statement may fall through
None of those are from recent changes. And this is just from my small
subset of test builds.
Thank you for letting me know about this. I don't have access to build
infrastructure like yours.
I am always happy to run test builds on my infrastructure.
Thank you!
My build infrastructure is similar to that of Linus.
But if you send me all of those I can create a patch and send it back
to you to make sure what you see is addressed. If we can coordinate for
this it'd be great for everybody. :)
Just have a look at the output of https://kerneltests.org/builders/,
in the 'master' and/or 'next' column. There are many additional warnings
in 'next'. Only downside is that you won't see the warnings unless there
are also build errors, but -next tends to have lots of those.
I see.
mm... for some reason I'm not able to establish connection with that site...
What is your host's IP address ? It might be auto-filtered; the site is hosted
on my own server and is under constant attack. Any subnet originating a sequence
of attacks will be blocked automatically.
Thanks,
Guenter
Just wondering ... wouldn't it be possible to run a coccinelle script
to identify those problems automatically, without depending on compile
warnings ? Or smatch/sparse, maybe ?
That was a common question from people along the whole process. The short
answer is: no. The reason for that is that Coccinelle is not a sophisticated
enough tool to determine if we are dealing with a false positive or an actual
bug.
That's why a code audit was needed.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
