Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/11] drm/i915: avoid stringop-overread warning on pri_latency

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
	tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Ning Sun <ning.sun@intel.com>, Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
	Martin Sebor <msebor@gcc.gnu.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/11] drm/i915: avoid stringop-overread warning on pri_latency
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:22:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFt1aBFwJI+z97g3@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kh04lin.fsf@intel.com>

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > gcc-11 warns about what appears to be an out-of-range array access:
> >
> > In function ‘snb_wm_latency_quirk’,
> >     inlined from ‘ilk_setup_wm_latency’ at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3108:3:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: error: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’ reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> >  3057 |         intel_print_wm_latency(dev_priv, "Primary", dev_priv->wm.pri_latency);
> >       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c: In function ‘ilk_setup_wm_latency’:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: note: referencing argument 3 of type ‘const u16 *’ {aka ‘const short unsigned int *’}
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:2994:13: note: in a call to function ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
> >  2994 | static void intel_print_wm_latency(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >       |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > My guess is that this code is actually safe because the size of the
> > array depends on the hardware generation, and the function checks for
> > that, but at the same time I would not expect the compiler to work it
> > out correctly, and the code seems a little fragile with regards to
> > future changes. Simply increasing the size of the array should help.
> 
> Agreed, I don't think there's an issue, but the code could use a bunch
> of improvements.
> 
> Like, we have intel_print_wm_latency() for debug logging and
> wm_latency_show() for debugfs, and there's a bunch of duplication and
> ugh.

There is all this ancient stuff in review limbo...
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/50802/

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx