From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:17:35 +0000 Message-ID: <1501517853.2466.12.camel@wdc.com> References: <20170731065016.2947796-1-arnd@arndb.de> <1501515117.2466.9.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org" Cc: "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "monis-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "Michal.Kalderon-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "sean.hefty-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "danielmicay-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "Ariel.Elior-YGCgFSpz5w/QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "hal.rosenstock-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org" , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "noaos-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 18:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Bart Van Assche = wrote: > > So inetaddr_event() assigns AF_INET so .sin_family and gcc warns about = code > > that is only executed if .sin_family =3D=3D AF_INET6? Since this warnin= g is the > > result of incorrect interprocedural analysis by gcc, shouldn't this be > > reported as a bug to the gcc authors? >=20 > I think the interprocedural analysis here is just a little worse than it = could > be, but it's not actually correct. It's not gcc that prints the warning = (if > it did, then I'd agree it would be a gcc bug) but the warning is triggere= d > intentionally by the fortified version of memcpy in include/linux/string.= h. >=20 > The problem as I understand it is that gcc cannot guarantee that it > tracks the value of addr->sa_family at least as far as the size of the > stack object, and it has no strict reason to do so, so the inlined > rdma_ip2gid() will still contain both cases. Hello Arnd, Had you already considered to uninline the rdma_ip2gid() function? Bart.= -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html