From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@rothwell.id.au>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
<lucas.dimarchi@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] allmodconfig build error in next-20240108
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:11:55 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240110081155.48bb0cbd@oak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <atbx7mspjbymkzgstk4l64qz3uky3wpmx4isrfg3ixgtvebdd2@cktpe4ejfk7k>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5080 bytes --]
Hi Lucas,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:58:40 -0600 Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 03:15:23PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 09:57:57AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 13:33:36 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Recent -next trees get the following build error for allmodconfig builds:
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.c: In function ‘xe_guc_pagefault_handler’:
> >> > ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:57:33: error: writing 16 bytes into a region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
> >> > 57 | #define __underlying_memcpy __builtin_memcpy
> >> > | ^
> >> > ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:644:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__underlying_memcpy’
> >> > 644 | __underlying_##op(p, q, __fortify_size); \
> >> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> > ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:689:26: note: in expansion of macro ‘__fortify_memcpy_chk’
> >> > 689 | #define memcpy(p, q, s) __fortify_memcpy_chk(p, q, s, \
> >> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.c:340:17: note: in expansion of macro ‘memcpy’
> >> > 340 | memcpy(pf_queue->data + pf_queue->tail, msg, len * sizeof(u32));
> >> > | ^~~~~~
> >> > In file included from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h:17,
> >> > from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm_types.h:16,
> >> > from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.h:13,
> >> > from drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.c:16:
> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h:102:25: note: at offset [1144, 265324] into destination object ‘tile’ of size 8
> >> > 102 | struct xe_tile *tile;
> >> > |
> >>
> >> Which architecture? What compiler and version? Anything special in your build
> >> setup? I do x86_64 allmodconfig builds all day with gcc v13.2 and I don't see
> >> this failure.
> >
> >Good point!
> >
> >I am using gcc version 11.3.1 20230605 (Red Hat 11.4.1-2) on x86_64.
> >I see the same behavior on gcc version 8.5.0, which for all I know might
> >be too old.
>
> I could reproduce it with allmodconfig and gcc 11.4.1 from rockylinux,
> but not with gcc 9.3 or 12.3. Also it's not reproduced with gcc 11.4.1
> when using defconfig + CONFIG_DRM_XE (even if -Wstringop-overflow is
> still added).
>
> I don't see a bug in the code, even if it inverts the head/tail
> convention.
>
> Searching around showed this which may be relevant: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101854
> At least I can reproduce the same issue as in the snippet provided
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101854#c7) with the buggy
> compiler.
>
> So, maybe the best thing to do for now is to disable -Wstringop-overflow
> for gcc < 12?
>
>
> ------8<-----
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> index 6952da8979ea..0433a3c6cbfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wunused-const-variable)
> subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-not-aligned)
> subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wformat-overflow)
> subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wformat-truncation)
> -subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-overflow)
> +subdir-ccflags-$(call gcc-min-version, 120000) += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-overflow)
> subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-truncation)
> # The following turn off the warnings enabled by -Wextra
> ifeq ($(findstring 2, $(KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN)),)
> ------8<-----
>
> and if we are tweaking the warnings, then do similarly in scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> so it doesn't show up again with W=1 builds. Thoughts?
The top level Makefile (in linux-next) has:
#Currently, disable -Wstringop-overflow for GCC 11, globally.
KBUILD_CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW) += $(call cc-option, -Wno-stringop-overflow)
KBUILD_CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_CC_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW) += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-overflow)
and init/Kconfig has:
# Currently, disable -Wstringop-overflow for GCC 11, globally.
config GCC11_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW
def_bool y
config CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW
bool
default y if CC_IS_GCC && GCC_VERSION >= 110000 && GCC_VERSION < 120000 && GCC11_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW
config CC_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW
bool
default y if CC_IS_GCC && !CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW
So, what does "grep -E '(STRINGOP_OVERFLOW|GCC_VERSION)' .config" show for your
breaking build(s)?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-09 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-08 21:33 [BUG] allmodconfig build error in next-20240108 Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-08 22:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-08 23:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-09 16:58 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-09 21:11 ` Stephen Rothwell [this message]
2024-01-09 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-09 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-10 1:09 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-10 3:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-10 5:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2024-01-10 10:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-01-10 15:00 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-10 15:18 ` Jani Nikula
2024-01-10 15:21 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-10 16:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240110081155.48bb0cbd@oak \
--to=sfr@rothwell.id.au \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.dimarchi@intel.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox