From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6C4C369D5 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ZmTDg5MsMz30Bd; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:19:47 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1745857187; cv=none; b=axegA5xBdH1MFE9q0H6vEQGZIkhFmEyJ42X6UDPwyF2eqf0CHlEdU773PwOTWhdh+3OZEO1fv2u5TI+A3HLq4xuivokiYP62gPktFpWEIMVY2DdpJIw31Qw497wsdv/XML1ttR3ESFPpuBGB/i8nWFcdsWcrja8SEYYiF3NNtZNrO348/KKDL9jTxgdW6JzQv32A5/9Y3wThY5qKQ3gyxDm2OegcPG+JvuHTVPus13EjmOrhsvIRFPRJALJT3Etb3WbY9HMWH1BSl47ATqjrCAYWSW8fuDfwBk6PWm1LIrGxM2KNLjYbgXzj97x8egv6GVWT5EKQJp3lFVtN3Cg2gQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1745857187; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=HGDLC+/tq49HxW9x1W2He+6J9oR5+LubazIU6IB7AU8=; h=Content-Type:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc: References:From:In-Reply-To; b=n52BwRuWoG47E9ZRhIRWnn0ISMltr/dwklckIvhy3Gmc/61Vclvl7vp9gW7NRj/50iFEJMgq6l2qQgxmvJyEv0LRhmkZ7PbN+Dr9Q5kDZ0KZP59ahS4t2znASnGBWR+AkDb5J2GCUQS4G8EOmI2VM1PDtZMPApxRYEJylvwb0z4ITAZOGQXq718W2CiKT188P/z2f9b8Uyl+ueOFWQ1yK12zFGdD8DlU8Mtcl4dzj5OyaZROp6I6FWSETJW7JDX5TZiOlkw1Xk/lr1kS3/Mj3E0CEMe0PKGE+xRZpajL7YaHimnYLwIUWbYOk44ulcgLsb/lfAkL0TYB0jHVpllDnw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=q3egqc6U; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=likhitha@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=q3egqc6U; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=likhitha@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ZmTDf6Mhlz301N for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:19:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 53SG4EpT028559; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:40 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=HGDLC+/tq49HxW9x1W2He+6J9oR5+L ubazIU6IB7AU8=; b=q3egqc6Udjk615xUN5323Ozu3bd59SxRvVaTS9/a7hX9tX B2ZviWqN1PD7icAQV8xbj0TruPrV2wkcpLx2OEYPEf/i2MIWp91Y8rMMfvU0EM1w S1OEXZ5nTWAWmEaU9hbgTuRlSCUVVYOPFgs/Nd8ZH13NHw4R45V2oWKd3e5hpD4L XDeYLNwwlmaVRAByUqKPtVrrnNsc+hpV1Y4sL3WB9+g9UGFuev6KNCytfaqTVV26 76TdYppb0e+woa6SRIe50k5XgH1A4Bx+npLjgpDmCiPp71+e4n9JtMH4xJmv857f w3hK0wcrKR2np2ZCm7yGqTxXSgfkhITx3UMa3hwQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 46a7kk1t28-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0360083.ppops.net (m0360083.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.0.8/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 53SGI5gU031323; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:40 GMT Received: from ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dc.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.220]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 46a7kk1t1y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 53SES6v5031680; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:39 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma12.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4699ttydc6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:38 +0000 Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.106]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 53SGJZ7o55116168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:35 GMT Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E9D20040; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF0720043; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.124.218.94] (unknown [9.124.218.94]) by smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:19:32 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------18jLi2f98JgDE8yCyKeVQWdw" Message-ID: <41240a0b-c5d2-40b7-8be8-0f474337be53@linux.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:49:31 +0530 X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/lib/perf: Fix -Werror=alloc-size-larger-than in cpumap.c To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Athira Rajeev Cc: Namhyung Kim , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Ian Rogers , "open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM" , linuxppc-dev , Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Madhavan Srinivasan References: <20250406163412.897313-1-likhitha@linux.ibm.com> <1b1450a8-f091-4091-981d-76b27f61be24@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Likhitha Korrapati In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=OYSYDgTY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=680faa9c cx=c_pps a=bLidbwmWQ0KltjZqbj+ezA==:117 a=bLidbwmWQ0KltjZqbj+ezA==:17 a=XR8D0OoHHMoA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=35VNYtWOVUhRdQnF18oA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=VvooFKkyQ5mZQGuT1OcA:9 a=BAfxYNigShONFzd-:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=lqcHg5cX4UMA:10 X-Proofpoint-GUID: G1NHXDCDEHLzZy2DUZXoN7H7JNnk9jor X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUwNDI4MDEzMiBTYWx0ZWRfX6WRB6OAQ0I+u I8Fplcb5eGFdxkEbZWOwSFp+yaHzlLarCi3qiKqpHV/AL2KIcnNJ9FKOKQksfneYhYCot5s090H fS4lY5tvioVkVluTr7ZLOqLZipKRZmnpTNsw+/hJ49RvMvmAQf50McVMNKiWr+bIHZ7jXpGvbwa /vLyYe/WfLKLBhZq/mhC7bzBFSZeuECDxOEcW8qJ+HhYZxTC7nalb1mqZZcwEBohecmUFvIw3VI b95QXx3NtbCgygWKzdtE21H7vXSspTBLzXAUTNuoCn80Hx5+kT0pnQ/6dNV//Vwcx2WC4tRbrex LnjXexV+FZ57EVgLyscXlIKrWwL19TY/iG09c3wDDxHwVrHvxUoaGglhXfjFsYOFy9xNcyskFJK fBQ1v8w7seJuPPA2DXcfg2cOatSoqizvrBi87H6HSTt2vCRfOG2wE+ingI/TUQs+AwIjMK71 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: tsyY2n3w8uXGEjMkKt9Kvu2RwwOmKLD3 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.0.736,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-04-28_06,2025-04-24_02,2025-02-21_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam authscore=0 authtc=n/a authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2504070000 definitions=main-2504280132 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------18jLi2f98JgDE8yCyKeVQWdw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Arnaldo, On 4/25/25 23:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 08:19:02PM +0530, Athira Rajeev wrote: >>> On 14 Apr 2025, at 7:08 AM, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >>> On 4/7/25 5:38 PM, Venkat Rao Bagalkote wrote: >>>> On 07/04/25 12:10 am, Athira Rajeev wrote: >>>>>> On 6 Apr 2025, at 10:04 PM, Likhitha Korrapati wrote: >>>>>> perf build break observed when using gcc 13-3 (FC39 ppc64le) >>>>>> with the following error. >>>>>> cpumap.c: In function 'perf_cpu_map__merge': >>>>>> cpumap.c:414:20: error: argument 1 range [18446744069414584320, 18446744073709551614] exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=] >>>>>> 414 | tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); >>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> In file included from cpumap.c:4: >>>>>> /usr/include/stdlib.h:672:14: note: in a call to allocation function 'malloc' declared here >>>>>> 672 | extern void *malloc (size_t __size) __THROW __attribute_malloc__ >>>>>> | ^~~~~~ >>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>>>>> Error happens to be only in gcc13-3 and not in latest gcc 14. >>>>>> Even though git-bisect pointed bad commit as: >>>>>> 'commit f5b07010c13c ("libperf: Don't remove -g when EXTRA_CFLAGS are used")', >>>>>> issue is with tmp_len being "int". It holds number of cpus and making >>>>>> it "unsigned int" fixes the issues. >>>>>> After the fix: >>>>>> CC util/pmu-flex.o >>>>>> CC util/expr-flex.o >>>>>> LD util/perf-util-in.o >>>>>> LD perf-util-in.o >>>>>> AR libperf-util.a >>>>>> LINK perf >>>>>> GEN python/perf.cpython-312-powerpc64le-linux-gnu.so >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Likhitha Korrapati >>>>> Looks good to me >>>>> Reviewed-by: Athira Rajeev >>>> Tested this patch on perf-tools-next repo, and this patch fixes the issue. >>>> Tested-by: Venkat Rao Bagalkote >>> Arnaldo, Namhyung, >>> can you consider pulling this fix? since it is breaking the build in gcc13-3 or >>> if you have any comments do let us know. > This isn't the only place in that file where this pattern exists: > > ⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$ grep malloc tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c > cpus = malloc(sizeof(*cpus) + sizeof(struct perf_cpu) * nr_cpus); > tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > ⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$ > > > struct perf_cpu_map *perf_cpu_map__alloc(int nr_cpus) > { > RC_STRUCT(perf_cpu_map) *cpus; > struct perf_cpu_map *result; > > if (nr_cpus == 0) > return NULL; > > cpus = malloc(sizeof(*cpus) + sizeof(struct perf_cpu) * nr_cpus); > > > int perf_cpu_map__merge(struct perf_cpu_map **orig, struct perf_cpu_map *other) > { > struct perf_cpu *tmp_cpus; > int tmp_len; > int i, j, k; > struct perf_cpu_map *merged; > > if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(*orig, other)) > return 0; > if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(other, *orig)) { > perf_cpu_map__put(*orig); > *orig = perf_cpu_map__get(other); > return 0; > } > > tmp_len = __perf_cpu_map__nr(*orig) + __perf_cpu_map__nr(other); > tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > > > struct perf_cpu_map *perf_cpu_map__intersect(struct perf_cpu_map *orig, > struct perf_cpu_map *other) > { > struct perf_cpu *tmp_cpus; > int tmp_len; > int i, j, k; > struct perf_cpu_map *merged = NULL; > > if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(other, orig)) > return perf_cpu_map__get(orig); > if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(orig, other)) > return perf_cpu_map__get(other); > > tmp_len = max(__perf_cpu_map__nr(orig), __perf_cpu_map__nr(other)); > tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > > I'm trying to figure out why its only in perf_cpu_map__merge() that this > triggers :-\ > > Maybe that max() call in perf_cpu_map__intersect() somehow makes the > compiler happy. > > And in perf_cpu_map__alloc() all calls seems to validate it. > > But wouldn't turning this into a calloc() be better? I have tried using calloc() instead of malloc() and the issue still exists even using calloc(). cpumap.c: In function ‘perf_cpu_map__merge’: cpumap.c:414:20: error: argument 1 range [18446744071562067968, 18446744073709551615] exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=] 414 | tmp_cpus = calloc(tmp_len , sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > > Like: > > diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c b/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c > index 4454a5987570cfbc..99d21618a252ac0e 100644 > --- a/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c > +++ b/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ int perf_cpu_map__merge(struct perf_cpu_map **orig, struct perf_cpu_map *other) > } > > tmp_len = __perf_cpu_map__nr(*orig) + __perf_cpu_map__nr(other); > - tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > + tmp_cpus = calloc(tmp_len, sizeof(struct perf_cpu)); > if (!tmp_cpus) > return -ENOMEM; > > ⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$ > > > And better, do the max size that the compiler is trying to help us > catch? > > - Arnaldo I have tried using max and it compiles with that. I am doing testing with this change and will be posting a V2. Thanks Likhitha --------------18jLi2f98JgDE8yCyKeVQWdw Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Arnaldo,

On 4/25/25 23:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 08:19:02PM +0530, Athira Rajeev wrote:

On 14 Apr 2025, at 7:08 AM, Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
On 4/7/25 5:38 PM, Venkat Rao Bagalkote wrote:

On 07/04/25 12:10 am, Athira Rajeev wrote:

On 6 Apr 2025, at 10:04 PM, Likhitha Korrapati <likhitha@linux.ibm.com> wrote:


      

        

          

            

              

                
perf build break observed when using gcc 13-3 (FC39 ppc64le)
with the following error.


              

            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              

                
cpumap.c: In function 'perf_cpu_map__merge':
cpumap.c:414:20: error: argument 1 range [18446744069414584320, 18446744073709551614] exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]
  414 |         tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));
      |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from cpumap.c:4:
/usr/include/stdlib.h:672:14: note: in a call to allocation function 'malloc' declared here
  672 | extern void *malloc (size_t __size) __THROW __attribute_malloc__
      |              ^~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors


              

            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              

                
Error happens to be only in gcc13-3 and not in latest gcc 14.
Even though git-bisect pointed bad commit as:
'commit f5b07010c13c ("libperf: Don't remove -g when EXTRA_CFLAGS are used")',
issue is with tmp_len being "int". It holds number of cpus and making
it "unsigned int" fixes the issues.


              

            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              

                
After the fix:


              

            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              

                
  CC      util/pmu-flex.o
  CC      util/expr-flex.o
  LD      util/perf-util-in.o
  LD      perf-util-in.o
  AR      libperf-util.a
  LINK    perf
  GEN     python/perf.cpython-312-powerpc64le-linux-gnu.so


              

            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              

                
Signed-off-by: Likhitha Korrapati <likhitha@linux.ibm.com>


              

              
Looks good to me


            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            

              
Reviewed-by: Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.ibm.com>


            

          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            
Tested this patch on perf-tools-next repo, and this patch fixes the issue.


          

        

      

      

      

        

          

            
Tested-by: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@linux.ibm.com>


          

        

      

      

      

        

          
Arnaldo, Namhyung,


        

      

      

      

        

          
can you consider pulling this fix? since it is breaking the build in gcc13-3 or
if you have any comments do let us know.


        

      

      
This isn't the only place in that file where this pattern exists:

⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$ grep malloc tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c 
	cpus = malloc(sizeof(*cpus) + sizeof(struct perf_cpu) * nr_cpus);
	tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));
	tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));
⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$


struct perf_cpu_map *perf_cpu_map__alloc(int nr_cpus)
{
        RC_STRUCT(perf_cpu_map) *cpus;
        struct perf_cpu_map *result;

        if (nr_cpus == 0)
                return NULL;

        cpus = malloc(sizeof(*cpus) + sizeof(struct perf_cpu) * nr_cpus);


int perf_cpu_map__merge(struct perf_cpu_map **orig, struct perf_cpu_map *other)
{
        struct perf_cpu *tmp_cpus;
        int tmp_len;
        int i, j, k;
        struct perf_cpu_map *merged;

        if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(*orig, other))
                return 0;
        if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(other, *orig)) {
                perf_cpu_map__put(*orig);
                *orig = perf_cpu_map__get(other);
                return 0;
        }

        tmp_len = __perf_cpu_map__nr(*orig) + __perf_cpu_map__nr(other);
        tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));


struct perf_cpu_map *perf_cpu_map__intersect(struct perf_cpu_map *orig,
                                             struct perf_cpu_map *other)
{
        struct perf_cpu *tmp_cpus;
        int tmp_len;
        int i, j, k;
        struct perf_cpu_map *merged = NULL;

        if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(other, orig))
                return perf_cpu_map__get(orig);
        if (perf_cpu_map__is_subset(orig, other))
                return perf_cpu_map__get(other);

        tmp_len = max(__perf_cpu_map__nr(orig), __perf_cpu_map__nr(other));
        tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));

I'm trying to figure out why its only in perf_cpu_map__merge() that this
triggers :-\

Maybe that max() call in perf_cpu_map__intersect() somehow makes the
compiler happy.

And in perf_cpu_map__alloc() all calls seems to validate it.

But wouldn't turning this into a calloc() be better?

    

    I have tried using calloc() instead of malloc() and the issue still exists even using calloc().
cpumap.c: In function ‘perf_cpu_map__merge’:

    
cpumap.c:414:20: error: argument 1 range [18446744071562067968, 18446744073709551615] exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]

    

      414 |         tmp_cpus = calloc(tmp_len , sizeof(struct perf_cpu));

    

      

Like:

diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c b/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c
index 4454a5987570cfbc..99d21618a252ac0e 100644
--- a/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c
+++ b/tools/lib/perf/cpumap.c
@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ int perf_cpu_map__merge(struct perf_cpu_map **orig, struct perf_cpu_map *other)
        }
 
        tmp_len = __perf_cpu_map__nr(*orig) + __perf_cpu_map__nr(other);
-       tmp_cpus = malloc(tmp_len * sizeof(struct perf_cpu));
+       tmp_cpus = calloc(tmp_len, sizeof(struct perf_cpu));
        if (!tmp_cpus)
                return -ENOMEM;
 
⬢ [acme@toolbx perf-tools-next]$


And better, do the max size that the compiler is trying to help us
catch?

- Arnaldo


    

    I have tried using max and it compiles with that. I am doing testing with this change and will be posting a V2.
    
Thanks

    Likhitha
  


--------------18jLi2f98JgDE8yCyKeVQWdw--