Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp4170231wrg; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:28:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225yj2H3KEkVrlqNMpnCqADNejIP0df0VK3Cy3228idrybpoqFU61Wk2J1+tlPRwY/0Utq8B X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5a1:: with SMTP id f30-v6mr11728908plf.124.1519676928226; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:28:48 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519676928; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DQKOjtCXVI0DiOHUkYwUfWzUHVQORXt9YQwPnSNMh9yZZsluzTC8HSOr/H3IkGr5Xx V3jQhuzowfD/EK+BD7dAu860Vthna4SLQBo8jJAMECOotaltiIx9wlEObB70Wt8wJUuc oXPffjw1Wp4DFO9YE3zpUxaAr0/wBY+H/H8oYwp2E3bl9T3TIbXJ73+2rcXY7PwiykP6 QpT2KgM7sb1R7mo5wMLNytxfGpHBcQjk0t+KayyvNQWB12sfNncW13hWagTlKxRZ5Rq1 BNXTOTnM5sv2MdOcpV4N9f9UBzm5CwTaALI5eFM8csN2X/433sdc3dR6Ajad0OmSmXax nCcg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from :arc-authentication-results; bh=O8HXuaisIAo+trrkGYx/d0JXH3YCvGFIqWS6/pzt+aI=; b=kTg09uNVz1Vg08O7VIpg5XvQaynxUmnKWCdXNb41DSixS0xp/J/joI/BT4g/8tjILT pIVQYg2zlAhzDfJtexOh+fkQYzi3R0zHFqj5WSSeNb0bXLvvmL7Ofc0Ybo1ZThS2PH4b /z6ZWNRo81EeIvwVaFq8MOIoHcc7qMX/tOB7PwnogzXMdSLm+epUy90owqeEtR2Aa5/Y 4MNgTijF/SvauJ2B/+lNyh0XyS3uNZbwn4FKnh2o4Brr+fekqE8Ni8V7hi8kWRNpEfAx XY1ZuUC4uy0XGPK2iiSiVx/a9gaT77bBG+Yb77f52p4MQWuQNiZBfW11UjoGO5ZjZ+5Y NzEQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m1-v6si7068938plk.318.2018.02.26.12.28.32; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753636AbeBZU1L (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36390 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753616AbeBZU1I (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:27:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (clnet-b04-243.ikbnet.co.at [83.175.124.243]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FEC594F; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:27:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Jessica Yu , Kees Cook , Linus Torvalds , Martin Sebor , Peter Zijlstra , Robert Richter , Thomas Gleixner , oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, Ingo Molnar Subject: [PATCH 4.15 28/64] x86/oprofile: Fix bogus GCC-8 warning in nmi_setup() Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:22:05 +0100 Message-Id: <20180226202154.656148557@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.2 In-Reply-To: <20180226202153.453363333@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180226202153.453363333@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 X-stable: review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.15-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Arnd Bergmann commit 85c615eb52222bc5fab6c7190d146bc59fac289e upstream. GCC-8 shows a warning for the x86 oprofile code that copies per-CPU data from CPU 0 to all other CPUs, which when building a non-SMP kernel turns into a memcpy() with identical source and destination pointers: arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'mux_clone': arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:285:2: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict] memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).multiplex, ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ per_cpu(cpu_msrs, 0).multiplex, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sizeof(struct op_msr) * model->num_virt_counters); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'nmi_setup': arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:466:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict] arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:470:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict] I have analyzed a number of such warnings now: some are valid and the GCC warning is welcome. Others turned out to be false-positives, and GCC was changed to not warn about those any more. This is a corner case that is a false-positive but the GCC developers feel it's better to keep warning about it. In this case, it seems best to work around it by telling GCC a little more clearly that this code path is never hit with an IS_ENABLED() configuration check. Cc:stable as we also want old kernels to build cleanly with GCC-8. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Jessica Yu Cc: Kees Cook Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Martin Sebor Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Robert Richter Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: oprofile-list@lists.sf.net Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180220205826.2008875-1-arnd@arndb.de Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095 Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c +++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static int nmi_setup(void) goto fail; for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { - if (!cpu) + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || !cpu) continue; memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).counters,