[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200325164606.GH14294@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:46:06 -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 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.
Assuming all issues can be fixed, I think it'd make sense to keep the
BUILD_BUG, especially if it's teasing out actual weirdness, even if the
weirdness is benign.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists