On 2013.01.07 at 09:16 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:50:02AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 09:09:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > It turns out that gcc 4.8 warns on array indexes being out of bounds
> > > unless it can prove otherwise. It gives this warning on some RCU
> > > initialization code. Because this is far from any fastpath, add
> > > an explicit check for array bounds and panic if so. This gives the
> > > compiler enough information to figure out that the array index is never
> > > out of bounds.
> > >
> > > However, if a similar false positive occurs on a fastpath, it will
> > > probably be necessary to tell the compiler to keep its array-index
> > > anxieties to itself. ;-)
> > >
> > > Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcutree.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > index d145796..e0d9815 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > @@ -2938,6 +2938,10 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state
> > > *rsp,
> > >
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_RCU_LVLS > ARRAY_SIZE(buf)); /* Fix buf[] init! */
> > >
> > > + /* Silence gcc 4.8 warning about array index out of range. */
> > > + if (rcu_num_lvls > RCU_NUM_LVLS)
> > > + panic("rcu_init_one: rcu_num_lvls overflow");
>
> > I do find it surprising, though, that the compiler can't figure this one
> > out, given that rcu_num_lvls gets initialized right before this in the
> > same file (and likely inlined into the same function). I wonder if it
> > thought some other code might change it unexpectedly, since rcu_num_lvls
> > doesn't get declared as static? Unfortunately, the loop macros in
> > rcutree.h make it difficult to make rcu_num_lvls static, but as far as I
> > can tell only one use of those macros ever gets expanded outside of
> > rcutree.c: the one in rcutree_trace.c. If you compile out tracing, and
> > declare rcu_num_lvls static, does the warning go away?
>
> I found it quite surprising also, hence the "array-index anxieties" above.
Yes, declaring rcu_num_lvls static would fix the issue. See the
following gcc bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55529
Please note that this was the only warning of this kind that occurred
with an allyesconfig.
--
Markus
--
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/
