linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: fix stack usage warning on old gcc

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: <CAK8P3a2YAe0KPQYQi_PhFvaYeA_4jHM8Y0qOR8oy-A07y-zeEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:02:24 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: fix stack usage warning on old gcc

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:56 AM Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
> > index 1b39e8d37834..6650fe4cfc20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c
> > @@ -178,6 +178,8 @@ static int tc358768_clear_error(struct tc358768_priv *priv)
> >
> >   static void tc358768_write(struct tc358768_priv *priv, u32 reg, u32 val)
> >   {
> > +     /* work around https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715 */
> > +     int tmpval = val;

>
> tc358768_write is not inline. What is the inline function here? Or is tc358768_write optimized to
> inline by the compiler?

I missed the lack of an explicit inline tag when looking at the bug. gcc
usually decides which functions to inline on its own, so there is little
difference in practice. Let me know if I should clarify the changelog and
resend it.

      Arnd