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.
> >
> > You are quite correct that rcu_num_lvls does get modified, but there
> > are checks in rcu_init_geometry() to ensure that it does not increase:
> >
> > /*
> > * The boot-time rcu_fanout_leaf parameter is only permitted
> > * to increase the leaf-level fanout, not decrease it. Of course,
> > * the leaf-level fanout cannot exceed the number of bits in
> > * the rcu_node masks. Finally, the tree must be able to accommodate
> > * the configured number of CPUs. Complain and fall back to the
> > * compile-time values if these limits are exceeded.
> > */
> > if (rcu_fanout_leaf < CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF ||
> > rcu_fanout_leaf > sizeof(unsigned long) * 8 ||
> > n > rcu_capacity[MAX_RCU_LVLS]) {
> > WARN_ON(1);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > The value of rcu_num_lvls starts out at RCU_NUM_LVLS, the same as
> > the dimension of the ->level[] array. The loop goes only to one less
> > than rcu_num_lvls, as needed, and rcu_num_lvls is never greater than
> > RCU_NUM_LVLS, so this should be safe.
> >
> > So what am I missing here?
>
> rcu_num_lvls does get modified in rcu_init_geometry:
>
> 2942 /* Calculate the number of rcu_nodes at each level of the tree.
> */
> 2943 for (i = 1; i <= MAX_RCU_LVLS; i++)
> 2944 if (n <= rcu_capacity[i]) {
> 2945 for (j = 0; j <= i; j++)
> 2946 num_rcu_lvl[j] =
> 2947 DIV_ROUND_UP(n, rcu_capacity[i -
> j]);
> 2948 rcu_num_lvls = i;
>
> And rcu_init_geometry gets called before rcu_init_one, so the compiler assumes
> the worst and issues a warning.
> 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? 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?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
