Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19257-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 10:15:34 +0100
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
Message-ID: <ZZu9Nvkp3PdSeLHQ@gmail.com>
References: <20231213134303.2302285-1-dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
 <20231213134303.2302285-2-dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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