[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180226202145.709601114@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:22:03 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 26/54] x86/oprofile: Fix bogus GCC-8 warning in nmi_setup()
4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
commit 85c615eb52222bc5fab6c7190d146bc59fac289e upstream.
GCC-8 shows a warning for the x86 oprofile code that copies per-CPU
data from CPU 0 to all other CPUs, which when building a non-SMP
kernel turns into a memcpy() with identical source and destination
pointers:
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'mux_clone':
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:285:2: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]
memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).multiplex,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
per_cpu(cpu_msrs, 0).multiplex,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sizeof(struct op_msr) * model->num_virt_counters);
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'nmi_setup':
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:466:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:470:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]
I have analyzed a number of such warnings now: some are valid and the
GCC warning is welcome. Others turned out to be false-positives, and
GCC was changed to not warn about those any more. This is a corner case
that is a false-positive but the GCC developers feel it's better to keep
warning about it.
In this case, it seems best to work around it by telling GCC
a little more clearly that this code path is never hit with
an IS_ENABLED() configuration check.
Cc:stable as we also want old kernels to build cleanly with GCC-8.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180220205826.2008875-1-arnd@arndb.de
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
+++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static int nmi_setup(void)
goto fail;
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
- if (!cpu)
+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || !cpu)
continue;
memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).counters,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists