From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760702AbZBDWNS (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:13:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755165AbZBDWNE (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:13:04 -0500 Received: from pfepb.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.236]:33709 "EHLO pfepb.post.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753261AbZBDWND (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:13:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:14:51 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Floris Kraak Cc: Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Trivial Patch Monkey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: Disable the -Wformat-security gcc flag Message-ID: <20090204221451.GA27254@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <56e1b5710902040628w5ceb36f5kdb1f433087355f80@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56e1b5710902040628w5ceb36f5kdb1f433087355f80@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:28:47PM +0100, Floris Kraak wrote: > Some distributions have enabled the gcc flag -Wformat-security by default.* > This results in a number of warnings about format arguments to > functions, sometimes in cases where fixing the warning is not likely > to actually fix a bug. > Instead of hand patching a dozens of places (possibly more) that > produce warnings that get ignored anyway we just turn off the flag in > the Makefile. > > Note: Regardless of any discussion surrounding the value of this > particular type of warning, having this show up in a few distributions > but not in the > vast majority of them means that this warning won't be seen by most of > the developers who introduce the new warnings in the first place. If > the > kernel decides it cares about format arguments it should do so > globally regardless of distribution. In which case I'd gladly whip up > a patch to do > the reverse thing and turn this thing on by default. However, such a > patch would have to produce a follow up patch(set) which fixes each > individual > warning. Before judging on this patch could you please post what warning it triggers and one or a few patches to fix some of them. Sam