From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
Cc: jpoimboe@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] objtool: Make objtool check actually fatal upon fatal errors
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:15:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZZu9Nvkp3PdSeLHQ@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231213134303.2302285-2-dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
* Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> wrote:
> Currently function calls within check() are sensitive to fatal errors
> (negative return codes) and abort execution prematurely. However, in
> all such cases the check() function still returns 0, and thus
> resulting in a successful kernel build.
>
> The only correct code paths were the ones that escpae the control flow
> with `return ret`.
>
> Make the check() function return `ret` status code, and make all
> negative return codes goto that instruction. This makes fatal errors
> (not warnings) from various function calls actually fail the
> build. E.g. if create_retpoline_sites_sections() fails to create elf
> section pair retpoline_sites the tool now exits with an error code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
So, is this not expected to be the case anymore:
> out:
> - /*
> - * For now, don't fail the kernel build on fatal warnings. These
> - * errors are still fairly common due to the growing matrix of
> - * supported toolchains and their recent pace of change.
> - */
> - return 0;
?
How about making it only fatal if CONFIG_WERROR=y, ie. an analogue to our
treatment of compiler warnings?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-08 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20231213134303.2302285-1-dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
2023-12-13 13:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] objtool: Make objtool check actually fatal upon fatal errors Dimitri John Ledkov
2024-01-08 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2024-01-09 19:24 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2024-01-09 19:48 ` Dimitri John Ledkov
2024-01-09 20:20 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-12-13 13:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] objtool: make objtool SLS validation fatal when building with CONFIG_SLS=y Dimitri John Ledkov
2024-01-08 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-09 19:31 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-12-13 13:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] objtool: make objtool RETPOLINE validation fatal when building with CONFIG_RETPOLINE=y Dimitri John Ledkov
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=ZZu9Nvkp3PdSeLHQ@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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