linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter tools: Introduce stricter C code checking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090528083548.GB7530@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2009 10:35:48 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, acme@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jkacur@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, efault@....de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter tools: Introduce stricter
	C code checking


* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:

> tip-bot for Ingo Molnar writes:
> 
> > perf_counter tools: Introduce stricter C code checking
> > 
> > Tighten up our C code requirements:
> > 
> >  - disallow warnings
> 
> This causes failures when I compile it as a 64-bit executable on
> powerpc:
> 
>     CC builtin-record.o
> builtin-record.c: In function 'pid_synthesize_mmap_events':
> builtin-record.c:241: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int *', but argument 3 has type '__u64 *'
> builtin-record.c:241: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int *', but argument 4 has type '__u64 *'
> builtin-record.c:241: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int *', but argument 9 has type '__u64 *'
> 
> This is because u64 is an unsigned long in userspace for a 64-bit 
> build, not unsigned long long.  I'm not sure how best to solve 
> this problem.

We could perhaps use __u64 consistently? (can we?)

> If I compile it as a 32-bit executable, it doesn't generate warnings,
> but when I try to run "perf top" (this is on a 64-bit kernel, of
> course, since 32-bit powerpc kernels don't currently support
> perf_counters), I get:
> 
> # perf top
>  left: 0000000000000000
>    ip: 00000000000891a4
> right: 00000000ffffffff
> KernelTop refresh period: 2 seconds
> perf: builtin-top.c:453: record_ip: Assertion `left <= ip && ip <= right' failed.
> Aborted

mind trying a 'git bisect run' session - which commit broke things 
for you? Or is this related to the type problems?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/