linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: tree build failure

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

Message-Id: <4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@...ibm.com>
Cc:	<sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure

>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what

I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.

>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).

Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...

Jan

Return-path: <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Received: from novell.com (hoex.provo.novell.com [130.57.1.153])
	by sinclair.provo.novell.com with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:34:01 -0600
Received: from ozlabs.org not authenticated [203.10.76.45]
	by novell.com with M+ Extreme Email Engine 2008.4.debug
	via secured & encrypted transport (TLS);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:34:00 -0600
X-MailFrom: rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Received: from vivaldi.localnet (unknown [150.101.102.135])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94856B7B73;
	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:57:03 +1000 (EST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.28-15-generic; KDE/4.2.2; i686; ; )
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
References: <4A8AEBFD0200007800010580@....id2.novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A8AEBFD0200007800010580@....id2.novell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200909231027.01006.rusty@...tcorp.com.au>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> 
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>

We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
more stuff.

Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?

#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
#else
/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
	do { 								\
		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));		\
		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;		\
	} while(0)
#endif

Thanks,
Rusty.