compiler errors with fread/fwrite and fortify source
Starting with intrepid and fortify source turned on by default, the compiler
unconditionally gives a warning for ignored return values for function calls of functions which are declared with __attribute__((warn_unused_result)). Building with -Werror turns the warnings into errors, which cannot be disabled (by design) [1]. glibc declares both fread and fwrite (and fwrite_unlocked) with __attribute__((warn_unused_result)). In [2] you find an argument why this may be unwanted: """ > The reason why it is a glibc bug is that it is very over the top of adding the > attribute here. And indeed there is no logical difference between printf and fwrite here, but glibc is marking fwrite and not printf. In both cases, a valid programming style is to use fflush and ferror at the end to check for errors, rather than checking on every write, or to check the return value of fclose. A program that uses fwrite without checking the return value or such a subsequent error is buggy - so is one using printf and failing later to check for errors on stdout. (GCC is among such buggy programs; "gcc --help >/dev/full" does not return error status as it should.) But checking at the end suffices (albeit losing information about the value of errno for the original error), you don't need to check at every call. """ Our current practice to fix this in packages is to either turn of -Werror, or patch the sources to introduce a dummy variable. Proposing to remove the attribute for fwrite/fwrite_unlocked for jaunty. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509 [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509#c6 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel |
compiler errors with fread/fwrite and fortify source
Hi Matthias,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:04:14AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Our current practice to fix this in packages is to either turn of -Werror, or > patch the sources to introduce a dummy variable. Proposing to remove the > attribute for fwrite/fwrite_unlocked for jaunty. I have no objection to this, and discovered the uselessness of unchecked fclose during my UDS demonstration (i.e. fwrite would succeed, but fclose would fail). fwrite warnings without fprintf, fclose, etc warnings is not sensible, and covering all of those would be way too noisy. -Kees -- Kees Cook Ubuntu Security Team -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 PM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.