linux-kernel - Re: next-20250616: S390 gcc-8 allnoconfig mm mempool.c In function remove

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: <20250616140858.9423D47-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:08:58 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: next-20250616: S390 gcc-8 allnoconfig mm mempool.c In function
 remove_element

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 07:06:10PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 17:36, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Regression while building S390 with the Linux next-20250616
> > with gcc-8 the following kernel warnings found.
> >
> > Regressions found on S390
> >  -  build/gcc-8-lkftconfig-allnoconfig
> >  -  build/gcc-8-lkftconfig-hardening
> >
> > Regression Analysis:
> >  - New regression? Yes
> >  - Reproducibility? Yes
> >
> > First seen on the next-20250616
> > Good: next-20250613
> > Bad:  next-20250616
> >
> > Build regression: S390 gcc-8 allnoconfig mm mempool.c In function remove_element
> >
> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> >
> > ## Build errors
> > mm/mempool.c: In function 'remove_element':
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h:497:20: warning: asm operand 0 probably
> > doesn't match constraints
> >  #define asm_inline asm __inline
> >                     ^~~
> > arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h:12:2: note: in expansion of macro 'asm_inline'
> >   asm_inline volatile(     \
> >   ^~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/s390/include/asm/bug.h:43:2: note: in expansion of macro '__EMIT_BUG'
> >   __EMIT_BUG("", 0);    \
> >   ^~~~~~~~~~
> > include/asm-generic/bug.h:77:57: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG'
> >  #define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while (0)
> >                                                          ^~~
> > mm/mempool.c:149:2: note: in expansion of macro 'BUG_ON'
> >   BUG_ON(pool->curr_nr < 0);
> >   ^~~~~~
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h:497:20: error: impossible constraint in 'asm'
> >  #define asm_inline asm __inline
> >                     ^~~
> 
> Anders bisect this build regressions and found,
> 
>  # first bad commit:
>     [45c79ca947c936085c94b716be92eaf9a1bdc8bb]
>     bugs/s390: Use 'cond_str' in __EMIT_BUG()

I'll take a look at this tomorrow. I guess the easiest "fix" is to
change the s390 bug code similar to arm64, so that those problems with
inline asm constraints cannot happen anymore.

At least I hope that will work. We'll see.