[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200325184741.GI14294@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:47:41 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 25 (arch/x86/kvm/)
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:46:06AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:26:20PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 25/03/20 17:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >> Doh, right. I think the only solution for that one is to degrade it to
> > >> WARN_ON(1).
> > > I reproduced the error, give me a bit to play with the code to see if the
> > > BUILD_BUG can be preserved. I'm curious as to why kvm_cpu_cap_mask() is
> > > special, and why it only fails with this config.
> > >
> >
> > I could not reproduce it, but I would not be surprised if there are
> > other configurations where the compiler cannot constant-propagate from
> > the reverse_cpuid struct into __cpuid_entry_get_reg.
>
> The error is related to UBSAN. There is at least one legitimate (but benign)
> underlying issue. I'm chasing down a second instance of the BUILD_BUG.
Argh, red herring. There is no underlying issue other than gcc tripping up
when -fsanitize=alignment is enabled by UBSAN. Good news is that the build
error can be fixed without resorting to a hack.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists