[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z68CX3HMEUW00WYi@rli9-mobl>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:44:15 +0800
From: Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>
To: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
CC: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, <oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: include/linux/thread_info.h:259:25: error: call to
'__bad_copy_to' declared with attribute error: copy destination size is too
small
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:39:46PM -0600, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> On Friday, 7 February 2025 06:11:47 CST kernel test robot wrote:
> > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:60,
> > from include/linux/wait.h:9,
> > from include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
> > from include/linux/fs.h:6,
> > from drivers/misc/ntsync.c:11:
> > In function 'check_copy_size',
> > inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:207:7,
> > inlined from 'setup_wait' at drivers/misc/ntsync.c:888:6:
> > >> include/linux/thread_info.h:259:25: error: call to '__bad_copy_to' declared with attribute error: copy destination size is too small
> > 259 | __bad_copy_to();
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> This was caught before and mentioned in [1]. The suggestion there of changing "args->count" to "count" doesn't help.
>
> Somehow gcc 12 thinks that the array_size(count, sizeof(*fds)) parameter is constant, although it's finnicky and depends on exactly where __builtin_constant_p() is evaluated.
>
> The bug goes away with gcc 13. Is this worth trying to work around? I don't have any ideas for how to do so.
Thanks for the info, at bot side, we will ignore this error to
avoid further reporting on old gcc.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/21811752-06d3-44cd-b3e6-f8124676df87@app.fastmail.com/
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists