Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:50:53 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] treewide: Remove unnamed static initializations to 0 |
| |
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:40:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:52 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Since "= { 0 }" and "= { }" have the same meaning ("incomplete > > initializer") they will both initialize the given variable to zero > > (modulo padding games). > > > > After this change, I can almost build the "allmodconfig" target with > > GCC 4.9 again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > --- > > With this patch and the following three, I can build with gcc 4.9 again: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223332.3224851-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223409.3225001-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223613.3225685-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > > I look forward to raising our minimum GCC version again! :) > > So this was one of the patches I left in my pending queue, and I don't > exactly hate it, but given the option to just say "don't use gcc-4.9" > and applying this big patch, I did the former.
Yeah, I think that's best.
> That said, one of the reasons I didn't like the patch that much is > that it seems to be a mindless "just search-and-replace everything", > very much for initializers that didn't complain even with gcc-4.9, and > that were entirely correct.
I was using Coccinelle to minimize the impact.
> I would _not_ mind a patch that actually fixed only the places where > it actually _is_ a question of missing braces, and we have an unnamed > union or something like that. > > So some of the gcc-4.9 warnings certainly looked at least _somewhat_ > reasonable for a compiler that didn't do unnamed unions or structures > very well. > > And I wouldn't mind replacing those. But this patch seems to then > change entirely correct code that no reasonable compiler could > possibly warn about. I wonder if some coccinelle script or other would > find a much more reasonable subset?
Right -- for example I excluded all 1-dimensional scalar array initializers. The warning comes from (IIUC) compound types (i.e. a struct or union within another struct or union).
> With the gcc-4.9 support being dropped, that probably doesn't matter > any more, of course. But I just wanted to say that I didn't hate the > patch, but that it seemed to be too much of an automated hammer for > the problem that could be solved a lot more surgically.
Yup, I'd much rather just leave all this as-is. It's effectively a 20,000 line white-space change, since there should be no actual binary output difference. When I spot-checked this, it was true, which is what I was expecting.
> The three remaining patches you point at look interesting, although I > think that third one looks decidedly odd. Why not add the 'const' in > the callers instead of removing it from the function? And why don't I > see those warnings - is this some compiler bug?
Looks like a GCC 4.9 bug, yes. The other two I'll continue to pursue, since they're general correctness fixes, even if modern GCC deals with them happily: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223332.3224851-1-keescook@chromium.org/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210910223409.3225001-1-keescook@chromium.org/
-Kees
-- Kees Cook
| |