On 12/9/24 12:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 09:42:28PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote: >> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > As this is different, my Ack does not still stand, sorry :( > >> +# Currently, disable -Wstringop-overread for gcc-13+ and FORTIFY_SOURCE globally. >> +config GCC13_NO_STRINGOP_OVERREAD >> + def_bool y > > I hit this with gcc 14, it's not just a gcc 13 issue. > >> +config CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERREAD >> + bool >> + default y if CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION >= 130000 && GCC13_NO_STRINGOP_OVERREAD && FORTIFY_SOURCE > > Ok, I see you enabled this for more than 13, but why call it "13"? Yeah I'd change it to GCC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERREAD. > >> + >> # >> # For architectures that know their GCC __int128 support is sound >> # >> diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn >> index 1d13cecc7cc7..1abd41269fd0 100644 >> --- a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn >> +++ b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ endif >> KBUILD_CPPFLAGS-$(CONFIG_WERROR) += -Werror >> KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS-y) >> KBUILD_CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_CC_NO_ARRAY_BOUNDS) += -Wno-array-bounds >> +KBUILD_CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERREAD) += -Wno-stringop-overread > > I don't want this disabled for all files in the kernel, we only have one > that this is a problem for. I think you disable this, the whole fortify > logic is disabled which is not the goal, why not just force the fortify > feature OFF if we have a "bad compiler" that can not support it? > okay so that means you recommend to disable FORTIFY_SOURCE for gcc-13+ instead of disabling -Wstringop-overread globally? > So no, I don't think this is the correct solution here, sorry. > > And it's odd that we are the only 2 people hitting it, has everyone else > just given up on gcc and moved on to using clang? I guess that developers are either using Clang or they haven't enabled CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE if they're using gcc-13+. Thanks, --Nilay
