On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 07:36:25AM -0700, Jeff Johnson wrote: > 'make W=1 C=1' on x86 gives the warning: > arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c:535:6: warning: symbol '__fortify_panic' was > not declared. Should it be static?
Hm, I can't reproduce this currently (but yes, it looks like arm vs x86 is mismatched). What tree is this? > Looking at this I see for ARM there is a prototype for __fortify_panic() in > arch/arm/boot/compressed/misc.h > And there is a matching implementation in arch/arm/boot/compressed/misc.c > > But for x86 there is only the implementation in > arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.c > There is not a prototype in arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.h. > > The easy fix for this would be to add a prototype to > arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.h. Yeah, I think this is the right solution. > But it seems strange to me to add a prototype to a header file that is only > for the benefit of the callee and is not the prototype/header used by the > caller, in this case the one in include/linux/fortify-string.h The stuff in boot/ doesn't tend to include fortify-string.h (since it's sort of "outside" the kernel), hence the need for additional prototypes. -- Kees Cook
