commit ca9b31f6bb upstream.
When CROSS_COMPILE is set (e.g. aarch64-linux-gnu-), if
$(CROSS_COMPILE)elfedit is found at /usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-elfedit,
GCC_TOOLCHAIN_DIR will be set to /usr/bin/. --prefix= will be set to
/usr/bin/ and Clang as of 11 will search for both
$(prefix)aarch64-linux-gnu-$needle and $(prefix)$needle.
GCC searchs for $(prefix)aarch64-linux-gnu/$version/$needle,
$(prefix)aarch64-linux-gnu/$needle and $(prefix)$needle. In practice,
$(prefix)aarch64-linux-gnu/$needle rarely contains executables.
To better model how GCC's -B/--prefix takes in effect in practice, newer
Clang (since
3452a0d8c1)
only searches for $(prefix)$needle. Currently it will find /usr/bin/as
instead of /usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-as.
Set --prefix= to $(GCC_TOOLCHAIN_DIR)$(notdir $(CROSS_COMPILE))
(/usr/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu-) so that newer Clang can find the
appropriate cross compiling GNU as (when -no-integrated-as is in
effect).
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1099
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit adc7192096 upstream.
gcc-10 now warns about passing aliasing pointers to functions that take
restricted pointers.
That's actually a great warning, and if we ever start using 'restrict'
in the kernel, it might be quite useful. But right now we don't, and it
turns out that the only thing this warns about is an idiom where we have
declared a few functions to be "printf-like" (which seems to make gcc
pick up the restricted pointer thing), and then we print to the same
buffer that we also use as an input.
And people do that as an odd concatenation pattern, with code like this:
#define sysfs_show_gen_prop(buffer, fmt, ...) \
snprintf(buffer, PAGE_SIZE, "%s"fmt, buffer, __VA_ARGS__)
where we have 'buffer' as both the destination of the final result, and
as the initial argument.
Yes, it's a bit questionable. And outside of the kernel, people do have
standard declarations like
int snprintf( char *restrict buffer, size_t bufsz,
const char *restrict format, ... );
where that output buffer is marked as a restrict pointer that cannot
alias with any other arguments.
But in the context of the kernel, that 'use snprintf() to concatenate to
the end result' does work, and the pattern shows up in multiple places.
And we have not marked our own version of snprintf() as taking restrict
pointers, so the warning is incorrect for now, and gcc picks it up on
its own.
If we do start using 'restrict' in the kernel (and it might be a good
idea if people find places where it matters), we'll need to figure out
how to avoid this issue for snprintf and friends. But in the meantime,
this warning is not useful.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 5a76021c2e upstream.
This is the final array bounds warning removal for gcc-10 for now.
Again, the warning is good, and we should re-enable all these warnings
when we have converted all the legacy array declaration cases to
flexible arrays. But in the meantime, it's just noise.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 44720996e2 upstream.
This is another fine warning, related to the 'zero-length-bounds' one,
but hitting the same historical code in the kernel.
Because C didn't historically support flexible array members, we have
code that instead uses a one-sized array, the same way we have cases of
zero-sized arrays.
The one-sized arrays come from either not wanting to use the gcc
zero-sized array extension, or from a slight convenience-feature, where
particularly for strings, the size of the structure now includes the
allocation for the final NUL character.
So with a "char name[1];" at the end of a structure, you can do things
like
v = my_malloc(sizeof(struct vendor) + strlen(name));
and avoid the "+1" for the terminator.
Yes, the modern way to do that is with a flexible array, and using
'offsetof()' instead of 'sizeof()', and adding the "+1" by hand. That
also technically gets the size "more correct" in that it avoids any
alignment (and thus padding) issues, but this is another long-term
cleanup thing that will not happen for 5.7.
So disable the warning for now, even though it's potentially quite
useful. Having a slew of warnings that then hide more urgent new issues
is not an improvement.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 5c45de21a2 upstream.
This is a fine warning, but we still have a number of zero-length arrays
in the kernel that come from the traditional gcc extension. Yes, they
are getting converted to flexible arrays, but in the meantime the gcc-10
warning about zero-length bounds is very verbose, and is hiding other
issues.
I missed one actual build failure because it was hidden among hundreds
of lines of warning. Thankfully I caught it on the second go before
pushing things out, but it convinced me that I really need to disable
the new warnings for now.
We'll hopefully be all done with our conversion to flexible arrays in
the not too distant future, and we can then re-enable this warning.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 78a5255ffb upstream.
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the
"maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also
if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel
config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that
warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so
it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that
warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by
default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the
extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never
confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not?
Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and
our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit b303c6df80 upstream.
Since -Wmaybe-uninitialized was introduced by GCC 4.7, we have patched
various false positives:
- commit e74fc973b6 ("Turn off -Wmaybe-uninitialized when building
with -Os") turned off this option for -Os.
- commit 815eb71e71 ("Kbuild: disable 'maybe-uninitialized' warning
for CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES") turned off this option for
CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES
- commit a76bcf557e ("Kbuild: enable -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
for "make W=1"") turned off this option for GCC < 4.9
Arnd provided more explanation in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/14/903
I think this looks better by shifting the logic from Makefile to Kconfig.
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/350
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
