[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022082654.GA1477657@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:26:54 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-aio@...ck.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move
rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:39:14AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:51:39AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
> > >
> > > This lets the compiler inline it into import_iovec() generating
> > > much better code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > > ---
> > > fs/read_write.c | 179 ------------------------------------------------
> > > lib/iov_iter.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-)
> >
> > Strangely, this commit causes a regression in Linus's tree right now.
> >
> > I can't really figure out what the regression is, only that this commit
> > triggers a "large Android system binary" from working properly. There's
> > no kernel log messages anywhere, and I don't have any way to strace the
> > thing in the testing framework, so any hints that people can provide
> > would be most appreciated.
>
> It's a pure move - modulo changed line breaks in the argument lists
> the functions involved are identical before and after that (just checked
> that directly, by checking out the trees before and after, extracting two
> functions in question from fs/read_write.c and lib/iov_iter.c (before and
> after, resp.) and checking the diff between those.
>
> How certain is your bisection?
The bisection is very reproducable.
But, this looks now to be a compiler bug. I'm using the latest version
of clang and if I put "noinline" at the front of the function,
everything works.
Nick, any ideas here as to who I should report this to?
I'll work on a fixup patch for the Android kernel tree to see if I can
work around it there, but others will hit this in Linus's tree sooner or
later...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists