Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp4203489wrg; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:07:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225wspPz5f6uE5Mc5Cy5/x2XSui2TVi2KgNB7vLy16ITppEc4GPc2DdPw6Tv2tLm6R3uN8l+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:850a:: with SMTP id bj10-v6mr12104105plb.5.1519679229601; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:07:09 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519679229; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=bZqCSPjQYmXfYvfPj7Bdod4qYhq/AO3N1t1TnMpSRXnvX19nEqfnXCEW0nCIdyjtTl 5gJXG4seb6n8GAqqd7LUTmHNUI4ByEluGSOr6d35E9ToBTLr0JJC6mCwdbus0VYdyMyt NFDUrv4sTze6mYz8EBC8KMog/8smYZIREAVEF1ZOOImVxeO34ziuyxd5tXVMXLC05Z4e NWdAX0auLSXsV4qyX/cN0gw++avNCjVyAZZ9QlOgzXx01qT91StTtkAACVK5lioGFRFx onWI3aQ1qvzfb44qP/mWFsOhrSbeGqq45dyRV2rXiNzqjcg5PzTDj6CwgPsbZZb5tNQT 1fbQ== 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=6tcQQ2MfE9B+kgeV934x4Z+DcG3eltidJVXlCVgQLbE=; b=Q5/7XoIhhsk0x+8PdvzHnCr5Rb3CYvoKvothDBpYroWaDNoxTMlDF33DPJFxbBo1kE XSCcXV6x18c65uhy5xwikSrlyOZzGEbhkN1vSgYHKKWUU+3PeJB+ov7Geg+ydp7qcJ0F GA9RS6utwCAzYjaiflpuuYhef4ajhu2/A63tRBLUCh46cOmpAWe08juQU7sejKVWbI3l Wd0LAjyzfklvzae7chcEDg30iIt7hjtXGCRIFfuhr1QiH6jdc8uV+Oc5MUTf2YoMsPnx Vz6ZZL0qvEhdrPnlaV0yOVrG95ktf3J8c4x6HkYEk7O9y1nbqZrWZk0B+w5szzUFVIp/ 7//g== 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 a7-v6si7326024pll.581.2018.02.26.13.06.53; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:07:09 -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 S1752270AbeBZUVN (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:21:13 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33138 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752248AbeBZUVL (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:21:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (clnet-b04-243.ikbnet.co.at [83.175.124.243]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF87AF24; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:21:10 +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 4.9 10/39] x86/oprofile: Fix bogus GCC-8 warning in nmi_setup() Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:20:31 +0100 Message-Id: <20180226201644.124112415@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.2 In-Reply-To: <20180226201643.660109883@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180226201643.660109883@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 4.9-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 @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ 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,