[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFt1aBFwJI+z97g3@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:22:48 +0200
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
x86@...nel.org, Ning Sun <ning.sun@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Simon Kelley <simon@...kelleys.org.uk>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anders Larsen <al@...rsen.net>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
tboot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
José Roberto de Souza
<jose.souza@...el.com>, Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@...el.com>,
Aditya Swarup <aditya.swarup@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] drm/i915: avoid stringop-overread warning on
pri_latency
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > gcc-11 warns about what appears to be an out-of-range array access:
> >
> > In function ‘snb_wm_latency_quirk’,
> > inlined from ‘ilk_setup_wm_latency’ at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3108:3:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: error: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’ reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> > 3057 | intel_print_wm_latency(dev_priv, "Primary", dev_priv->wm.pri_latency);
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c: In function ‘ilk_setup_wm_latency’:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘const u16 *’ {aka ‘const short unsigned int *’}
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:2994:13: note: in a call to function ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
> > 2994 | static void intel_print_wm_latency(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > My guess is that this code is actually safe because the size of the
> > array depends on the hardware generation, and the function checks for
> > that, but at the same time I would not expect the compiler to work it
> > out correctly, and the code seems a little fragile with regards to
> > future changes. Simply increasing the size of the array should help.
>
> Agreed, I don't think there's an issue, but the code could use a bunch
> of improvements.
>
> Like, we have intel_print_wm_latency() for debug logging and
> wm_latency_show() for debugfs, and there's a bunch of duplication and
> ugh.
There is all this ancient stuff in review limbo...
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/50802/
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists