Messages in this thread | | | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds | Date | Wed, 8 Sep 2021 05:42:30 -0700 |
| |
On 9/8/21 2:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:16 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >>> On 9/7/21 9:48 PM, Al Viro wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:28:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> memcpy(eth_addr, sanitize_address((void *) 0xfffc1f2c), ETH_ALEN); >>>>> >>>>> but that just seems weird. Is there a better solution ? >>>> >>>> (char (*)[ETH_ALEN])? Said that, shouldn't that be doing something like >>>> ioremap(), rather than casting explicit constants? >>> >>> Typecasts or even assigning the address to a variable does not help. >>> The sanitizer function can not be static either. >> >> So it can only be fixed by obfuscating the constant address in a >> chain of out-of-line functions... >> How is this compiler to be used for bare-metal programming? > > I reported this as a gcc bug when I first saw it back in March: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578 > > Martin Sebor suggested marking the pointer as 'volatile' as a workaround, > which is probably fine for bare-metal programming, but I would consider > that bad style for the kernel boot arguments. The RELOC_HIDE trick is probably > fine here, as there are only a couple of instances, and for the network > driver, using volatile is probably appropriate as well. > > I still hope this can be fixed in a future gcc-11.x release. Maybe we should > add further instances of the problem on the gcc bug to boost the priority? > >>> I don't know the hardware, so I can not answer the ioremap() question. >> >> Yes it should. But this driver dates back to 2.1.110, when only >> half of the architectures already had ioremap(). > > How does mvme16x even create the mapping? Is this a virtual address > that is hardwired to the bus or do you have a static mapping somewhere? > I see two other drivers accessing the nvram here > > arch/m68k/mvme16x/config.c:static MK48T08ptr_t volatile rtc = > (MK48T08ptr_t)MVME_RTC_BASE;
Is that even correct ? I am always shaky with qualifiers, but doesn't that mean that the pointer is volatile, not the object it points to ?
> arch/m68k/mvme16x/rtc.c: volatile MK48T08ptr_t rtc = > (MK48T08ptr_t)MVME_RTC_BASE; > > The same trick should work here, just create a local variable with a > volatile pointer and read from that. >
I had tried that; it doesn't work because then the compiler complains that the 'volatile' qualifier is discarded when passing the argument.
drivers/net/ethernet/i825xx/82596.c: In function 'i82596_probe': drivers/net/ethernet/i825xx/82596.c:1147:34: error: passing argument 2 of '__builtin_memcpy' discards 'volatile' qualifier from pointer target type
Oddly enough, a memcpy on the 'rtc' variable doesn't fail, neither with nor without volatile. Something else is going on.
Guenter
| |