Re: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"

Greg KH
2020-10-22T08:26:21Z

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:39:14AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 06:51:39AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
> > >
> > > This lets the compiler inline it into import_iovec() generating
> > > much better code.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > > ---
> > > fs/read_write.c | 179 ------------------------------------------------
> > > lib/iov_iter.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-)
> >
> > Strangely, this commit causes a regression in Linus's tree right now.
> >
> > I can't really figure out what the regression is, only that this commit
> > triggers a "large Android system binary" from working properly. There's
> > no kernel log messages anywhere, and I don't have any way to strace the
> > thing in the testing framework, so any hints that people can provide
> > would be most appreciated.
>
> It's a pure move - modulo changed line breaks in the argument lists
> the functions involved are identical before and after that (just checked
> that directly, by checking out the trees before and after, extracting two
> functions in question from fs/read_write.c and lib/iov_iter.c (before and
> after, resp.) and checking the diff between those.
>
> How certain is your bisection?

The bisection is very reproducable.

But, this looks now to be a compiler bug. I'm using the latest version
of clang and if I put "noinline" at the front of the function,
everything works.

Nick, any ideas here as to who I should report this to?

I'll work on a fixup patch for the Android kernel tree to see if I can
work around it there, but others will hit this in Linus's tree sooner or
later...

thanks,

greg k-h