In function ‘kmalloc_node’,
inlined from ‘kzalloc_node.constprop’ at ./include/linux/slab.h:743:9,
inlined from ‘__irq_domain_add’ at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:153:9:
./include/linux/slab.h:618:9: error: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]
return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
The 'size' can be negative here, which will then get turned into a giant
size argument for kzalloc_node(). Changing the size to 'unsigned int'
instead seems more appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/irqdomain.h | 2 +-
kernel/irq/irqdomain.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
index 23e4ee523576..9ee238ad29ce 100644
--- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
+++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static inline struct fwnode_handle *irq_domain_alloc_fwnode(phys_addr_t *pa)
}
void irq_domain_free_fwnode(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
-struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, int size,
+struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, unsigned int size,
irq_hw_number_t hwirq_max, int direct_max,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data);
diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
index 19e83e9b723c..4d8fc65cf38f 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_domain_free_fwnode);
* Allocates and initializes an irq_domain structure.
* Returns pointer to IRQ domain, or NULL on failure.
*/
-struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, int size,
+struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, unsigned int size,
irq_hw_number_t hwirq_max, int direct_max,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data)
--
2.17.1
On Wed, Sep 08 2021 at 09:46, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> In function ‘kmalloc_node’,
> inlined from ‘kzalloc_node.constprop’ at ./include/linux/slab.h:743:9,
> inlined from ‘__irq_domain_add’ at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:153:9:
> ./include/linux/slab.h:618:9: error: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]
> return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
>
> The 'size' can be negative here, which will then get turned into a giant
> size argument for kzalloc_node(). Changing the size to 'unsigned int'
> instead seems more appropriate.
What's more appropriate about that?
Thanks,
tglx
On 2021/9/14 19:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08 2021 at 09:46, Bixuan Cui wrote:
>> In function ‘kmalloc_node’,
>> inlined from ‘kzalloc_node.constprop’ at ./include/linux/slab.h:743:9,
>> inlined from ‘__irq_domain_add’ at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:153:9:
>> ./include/linux/slab.h:618:9: error: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]
>> return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
>>
>> The 'size' can be negative here, which will then get turned into a giant
>> size argument for kzalloc_node(). Changing the size to 'unsigned int'
>> instead seems more appropriate.
> What's more appropriate about that?
We call struct_size(domain, revmap, size) in __irq_domain_add() for calculations.
The struct_size() is implemented in include/linux/overflow.h
static inline __must_check size_t __ab_c_size(size_t a, size_t b, size_t c)
{
size_t bytes;
The 'size' is passed to __ab_c_size(), the input parameter is 'size_t'(unsigned int).
On the other hand, I looked at all the code that calls __irq_domain_add(), such as:
include/linux/irqdomain.h:
static inline struct irq_domain *irq_domain_create_linear(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
unsigned int size,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data)
{
return __irq_domain_add(fwnode, size, size, 0, ops, host_data);
or
static inline struct irq_domain *irq_domain_add_linear(struct device_node *of_node,
unsigned int size,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data)
{
return __irq_domain_add(of_node_to_fwnode(of_node), size, size, 0, ops, host_data);
And kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
struct irq_domain *irq_domain_create_simple(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
unsigned int size,
unsigned int first_irq,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data)
{
struct irq_domain *domain;
domain = __irq_domain_add(fwnode, size, size, 0, ops, host_data);
All 'size' passed to __irq_domain_add() are unsigned int.
So I think it's more appropriate to replace it with unsigned int.
Thanks,
Bixuan Cui
On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 10:03, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> On 2021/9/14 19:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> And kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
> struct irq_domain *irq_domain_create_simple(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> unsigned int size,
> unsigned int first_irq,
> const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
> void *host_data)
> {
> struct irq_domain *domain;
>
> domain = __irq_domain_add(fwnode, size, size, 0, ops, host_data);
>
> All 'size' passed to __irq_domain_add() are unsigned int.
>
> So I think it's more appropriate to replace it with unsigned int.
Appropriate is not really a technical reason. Making the code consistent
is.
But that has nothing to do with the completely bogus compiler warning in
the changelog you provided.
Thanks,
tglx
On 2021/9/15 15:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 10:03, Bixuan Cui wrote:
>> On 2021/9/14 19:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> And kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> struct irq_domain *irq_domain_create_simple(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>> unsigned int size,
>> unsigned int first_irq,
>> const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
>> void *host_data)
>> {
>> struct irq_domain *domain;
>>
>> domain = __irq_domain_add(fwnode, size, size, 0, ops, host_data);
>>
>> All 'size' passed to __irq_domain_add() are unsigned int.
>>
>> So I think it's more appropriate to replace it with unsigned int.
> Appropriate is not really a technical reason. Making the code consistent
> is.
>
> But that has nothing to do with the completely bogus compiler warning in
> the changelog you provided.
Hello,
It is a real compilation warning, It occurs when compiled with
.config(https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=KernelConfig&x=4d196bb8b1e038c0).
This is my compile log:
// cp .config from https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=KernelConfig&x=4d196bb8b1e038c0
$ make menuconfig
$ make kernel/irq/irqdomain.o
SYNC include/config/auto.conf.cmd
DESCEND objtool
CALL scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
CC kernel/irq/irqdomain.o
In file included from ./include/linux/resource_ext.h:11:0,
from ./include/linux/acpi.h:14,
from kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:5:
In function ‘kmalloc_node’,
inlined from ‘kzalloc_node.constprop’ at ./include/linux/slab.h:743:9,
inlined from ‘__irq_domain_add’ at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:153:9:
./include/linux/slab.h:618:9: warning: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/slab.h: In function ‘__irq_domain_add’:
./include/linux/slab.h:455:7: note: in a call to allocation function ‘__kmalloc_node’ declared here
void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node) __assume_slab_alignment __malloc;
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks,
Bixuan Cui
On 2021/9/15 15:49, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Appropriate is not really a technical reason. Making the code consistent
> is.
Agree, I'll change the message.
Thanks
Bixuan Cui