Linux 5.15 Enabling "-Werror" By Default For All Kernel Builds

[NobodyXu]

Ideally they'll add "-Werror=format-security" to new versions, like Fedora does. Don't complain that it's more difficult for someone else to write defensive code, when you're the one most affected.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Format-Security-FAQ

Linux kernel doesn’t use standard IO functions provided by C stdio.h, so this option likely do nothing.

[perpetually high]

The biggest problem I have with static analysis (besides too much time wasted "fixing" false-positive warnings) is the false sense of security some people seem to take from it. It's only one tool in the toolbox. Over-reliance on any one tool is going to be unproductive.

Very true, and I think this is a great argument against it.

[perpetually high]

Why would they want to do the right thing when they can do the wrong thing instead.

Sometimes you gotta do the wrong thing, before the right thing becomes apparent.

(Linus could also be sending a message to developers and then just revert this next kernel as a troll move. Totally a Linus move. He's capable of said trolling.)

[brad0]

Sometimes you gotta do the wrong thing, before the right thing becomes apparent.

Except this was apparent 20 years ago.

[boxie]

Very true, and I think this is a great argument against it.

or - and hear me out here - getting devs to write code that is of better quality is just a net positive.

true that it is is a bit of an annoyance, but that helps you (the dev maintaining the code) in the long run.

As an example - there are no warnings in Golang, it's either an error or not worth surfacing - unused variables are errors, unused imports too.

I never once thought of things being "more secure" because I have no errors.

I just want my code to run. I suspect this will be the same kernel devs - the bar to getting new code in is just a little higher and while you might trip over it a few times, you train yourself to not to do the things and you are back to clearing the bar easily.

net positive!

[Sonadow]

I don't care about Linus's explanations, this thing stays off in my custom builds.

[perpetually high]

or - and hear me out here - getting devs to write code that is of better quality is just a net positive.

true that it is is a bit of an annoyance, but that helps you (the dev maintaining the code) in the long run.

As an example - there are no warnings in Golang, it's either an error or not worth surfacing - unused variables are errors, unused imports too.

I never once thought of things being "more secure" because I have no errors.

I just want my code to run. I suspect this will be the same kernel devs - the bar to getting new code in is just a little higher and while you might trip over it a few times, you train yourself to not to do the things and you are back to clearing the bar easily.

net positive!

Gross annoying, net positive : )

Yeah, but it's just a thorn in the side and maybe slows them down. I'm not disagreeing so much, I just don't think it should be a default behavior. More opt-in. But again, I understand why Linus did it, and it's worth experimenting to see what happens, and if it works out well, then experiment successful.

[perpetually high]

Except this was apparent 20 years ago.

Fair, but the kernel and kernel development seems to have been doing good so far. (I say that with no inside knowledge, however)

The Linux kernel is a really interesting beast. There's no benchmark for it. Nothing to compare it to. Stands on its own mountain.

With that, it's hard to say what's the best way. Linus literally made git because svn wasn't sufficient for Linux. Now look at git. Now look at GitHub. Now look at everything.

I'm so impressed with the Linux kernel, GNU/userspace, all of it. I'm trying to do my best to give back now. With as little complaining, and more doing.

[brad0]

(I say that with no inside knowledge, however)

That is very evident.

[indepe]

I'd say fixing all warnings saves debugging time overall, in the long run. However that might apply more to writing/maintaining new code than to (re-)building existing code that you wouldn't debug anyway.....

It's probably a time saver especially for Linus and other maintainers who need to go through source code written by thousands of engineers.