From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753739Ab2K2UD0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:03:26 -0500 Received: from ud10.udmedia.de ([194.117.254.50]:42042 "EHLO mail.ud10.udmedia.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753412Ab2K2UDY (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:03:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:03:21 +0100 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kernel/rcutree.c:2850:13: warning: array subscript is above array bounds Message-ID: <20121129200321.GC248@x4> References: <20121129134752.GB219@x4> <20121129170241.GT2474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121129174358.GA248@x4> <20121129181013.GW2474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121129182254.GB248@x4> <20121129191933.GX2474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20121129191933.GX2474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2012.11.29 at 11:19 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 07:22:54PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2012.11.29 at 10:10 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 06:43:58PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > On 2012.11.29 at 09:02 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:47:52PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > > With gcc-4.8 I get: > > > > > > > > > > > > CC kernel/rcutree.o > > > > > > kernel/rcutree.c: In function ‘rcu_init_one’: > > > > > > kernel/rcutree.c:2850:13: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds] > > > > > > rsp->level[i] = rsp->level[i - 1] + rsp->levelcnt[i - 1]; > > > > > > ^ > > > > > > 2849 for (i = 1; i < rcu_num_lvls; i++) > > > > > > 2850 rsp->level[i] = rsp->level[i - 1] + rsp->levelcnt[i - 1]; > > > > > > > > > > > > At first I thought that the warning was bogus, but rcu_num_lvls isn't static > > > > > > and gets modified prior to the for loop. > > > > > > > > > So, in your opinion, what would be the best way to silence this warning? > > > > > > Good question. Are you saying that if the compiler cannot prove that > > > the index is in bounds, it is going to throw a warning? > > > > Yes, it does seem to be the case. See also my gcc bug report (closed as > > invalid): http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529 > > > > > If that is the case, perhaps telling the compiler to cool it via the > > > command line would be best. > > > Or is this really one of a very few places in the kernel where the > > > compiler is complaining? > > > > Yes. With my (admittedly minimal) config this is only place. > > Hmmmm... In that case... > > Given that this is initialization code that is far from any fastpath, > could you try putting something like this at the beginning of > rcu_init_one()? > > if (rcu_num_lvls > RCU_NUM_LVLS) > panic("rcu_num_lvls overflow"); > > If the compiler doesn't know that panic() never returns (despite the > __noreturn), you could add a "return" after the panic(). > > Does that help? Yes. This fixes the issue. Many thanks. (Perhaps not surprisingly the warning never occurred for CONFIG_NR_CPUS>64. I've also built a allyesconfig config and there was no -Warray-bounds warning at all.) -- Markus