linux-kernel - Re: next: arm64: gcc-8-defconfig: ufshcd.c:10629:2: /builds/linux/include/linux/compiler_types.h:397:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_553' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:51:03 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: next: arm64: gcc-8-defconfig: ufshcd.c:10629:2:
 /builds/linux/include/linux/compiler_types.h:397:38: error: call to
 '__compiletime_assert_553' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON
 failed:

On 8/1/23 07:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 16:23, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 at 18:53, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> 
>>>>    - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20230801/testrun/18754886/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/log
>>>>    - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20230801/testrun/18754886/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/details/
>>>>    - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20230801/testrun/18754886/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/history/
>>>
>>> I can't reproduce this build error with a gcc-12 arm64 cross-compiler. How
>>> important is gcc-8 for the ARM community?
>>
>> You are right,
>> gcc-12 build pass.
>> gcc-8 build failed.
> 
> I can also reproduce this with gcc-9.5.0 from
> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ but
> not with 10.5.0 or clang.
> 
> I get the same results for x86 with gcc-9.5.0.
> 
> See https://godbolt.org/z/GjGrW9znc for a partially reduced testcase.
Thanks Arnd, this is very helpful. The first error message reported for that
test case is as follows:

<source>:34:286: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_655' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: ((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80
    34 |  do { __attribute__((__noreturn__)) extern void __compiletime_assert_655(void) __attribute__((__error__("BUILD_BUG_ON failed: " "((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80")));
  if (!(!(((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80))) __compiletime_assert_655(); } while (0);
       |

If I change the return type of ufshcd_check_header_layout() from void
into unsigned int and insert the following at the start of that function:

return ((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80;

then the compiler shows the following in the output window:

xorl    %eax, %eax

In other words, the expression next to the return statement evaluates to zero
but the same expression does not evaluate to zero in the BUILD_BUG_ON()
statement. Does this perhaps indicate a compiler bug? And if so, what is the
appropriate way to fix the build error? Insert an #ifdef/#endif pair inside
ufshcd_check_header_layout() such that the compile-time checks do not happen
for gcc version 9 or older?

Thanks,

Bart.