Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19050-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:56:29 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic: suppress gnu_printf warning
Message-ID: <ZZtWTcK3enKIygWM@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20240107091641.579849-1-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20240107102103.3c0ba0cfa4df37df4b59090e@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20240107102103.3c0ba0cfa4df37df4b59090e@linux-foundation.org>

On 01/07/24 at 10:21am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Jan 2024 17:16:41 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > with GCC 13.2.1 and W=1, there's compiling warning like this:
> > 
> > kernel/panic.c: In function ‘__warn’:
> > kernel/panic.c:676:17: warning: function ‘__warn’ might be a candidate for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Wsuggest-attribute=format]
> >   676 |                 vprintk(args->fmt, args->args);
> >       |                 ^~~~~~~
> > 
> > The normal __printf(x,y) adding can't fix it. So add workaround which
> > disables -Wsuggest-attribute=format to mute it.
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -666,8 +666,13 @@ void __warn(const char *file, int line, void *caller, unsigned taint,
> >  		pr_warn("WARNING: CPU: %d PID: %d at %pS\n",
> >  			raw_smp_processor_id(), current->pid, caller);
> >  
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > +#ifndef __clang__
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wsuggest-attribute=format"
> > +#endif
> >  	if (args)
> >  		vprintk(args->fmt, args->args);
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> >  
> >  	print_modules();
> 
> __warn() clearly isn't such a candidate.  I'm suspecting that gcc's
> implementation of this warning is pretty crude.  Is it a new thing in
> gcc-13.2?  

Yeah, this isn't like other warnings in kernel. The compiler seems too
smart by look into the  parameter 'args' of 'struct warn_args*'.

> 
> A bit of context for gcc@gcc.gnu.org:
> 
> struct warn_args {
> 	const char *fmt;
> 	va_list args;
> };
> 
> ...
> 
> void __warn(const char *file, int line, void *caller, unsigned taint,
> 	    struct pt_regs *regs, struct warn_args *args)
> {
> 	disable_trace_on_warning();
> 
> 	if (file)
> 		pr_warn("WARNING: CPU: %d PID: %d at %s:%d %pS\n",
> 			raw_smp_processor_id(), current->pid, file, line,
> 			caller);
> 	else
> 		pr_warn("WARNING: CPU: %d PID: %d at %pS\n",
> 			raw_smp_processor_id(), current->pid, caller);
> 
> 	if (args)
> 		vprintk(args->fmt, args->args);
> 
> 	print_modules();
> 
> 	if (regs)
> 		show_regs(regs);
> 
> 	check_panic_on_warn("kernel");
> 
> 	if (!regs)
> 		dump_stack();
> 
> 	print_irqtrace_events(current);
> 
> 	print_oops_end_marker();
> 	trace_error_report_end(ERROR_DETECTOR_WARN, (unsigned long)caller);
> 
> 	/* Just a warning, don't kill lockdep. */
> 	add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> }
>