linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] f2fs: fix atgc bug on issue in 32bits platform

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <88fce16b-5092-4246-8bbf-23f2c03224f3@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:07:21 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>,
        "zhiguo.niu" <zhiguo.niu@...soc.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
        chao@...nel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     llvm@...ts.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
        niuzhiguo84@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] f2fs: fix atgc bug on issue in 32bits platform

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 09:33, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi zhiguo.niu",
>
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>
> [auto build test WARNING on jaegeuk-f2fs/dev-test]
> [also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.1-rc4 next-20221109]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
>
> url:    
> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/zhiguo-niu/f2fs-fix-atgc-bug-on-issue-in-32bits-platform/20221108-153745
> base:   
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git 
> dev-test
> patch link:    
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/1667889638-9106-1-git-send-email-zhiguo.niu%40unisoc.com
> patch subject: [PATCH V2] f2fs: fix atgc bug on issue in 32bits platform
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
>    In file included from fs/f2fs/gc.c:22:
>>> fs/f2fs/gc.h:65:2: warning: field  within 'struct victim_entry' is less aligned than 'union victim_entry::(anonymous at fs/f2fs/gc.h:65:2)' and is usually due to 'struct victim_entry' being packed, which can lead to unaligned accesses [-Wunaligned-access]
>            union {

It looks like the problem is the extra unqualified __packed annotation
inside of 'struct rb_entry'. Removing that is probably better than
adding extra __packed annotation that just lead to less efficient
code.

     Arnd