|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/dom0: placate GCC 12 compile-time errors with UBSAN and PVH_GUEST
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 09:10:59AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.03.2025 16:30, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > When building Xen with GCC 12 with UBSAN and PVH_GUEST both enabled the
> > compiler emits the following errors:
> >
> > arch/x86/setup.c: In function '__start_xen':
> > arch/x86/setup.c:1504:19: error: 'consider_modules' reading 40 bytes from a
> > region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> > 1504 | end = consider_modules(s, e, reloc_size + mask,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 1505 | bi->mods, bi->nr_modules, -1);
> > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/x86/setup.c:1504:19: note: referencing argument 4 of type 'const
> > struct boot_module[0]'
> > arch/x86/setup.c:686:24: note: in a call to function 'consider_modules'
> > 686 | static uint64_t __init consider_modules(
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/x86/setup.c:1535:19: error: 'consider_modules' reading 40 bytes from a
> > region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> > 1535 | end = consider_modules(s, e, size, bi->mods,
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 1536 | bi->nr_modules + relocated, j);
> > | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/x86/setup.c:1535:19: note: referencing argument 4 of type 'const
> > struct boot_module[0]'
> > arch/x86/setup.c:686:24: note: in a call to function 'consider_modules'
> > 686 | static uint64_t __init consider_modules(
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > This seems to be the result of some function manipulation done by UBSAN
> > triggering GCC stringops related errors. Placate the errors by declaring
> > the function parameter as `const struct *boot_module` instead of `const
> > struct boot_module[]`.
> >
> > Note that GCC 13 seems to be fixed, and doesn't trigger the error when
> > using `[]`.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> > index 4a32d8491186..bde5d75ea6ab 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ static void __init noinline move_xen(void)
> > #undef BOOTSTRAP_MAP_LIMIT
> >
> > static uint64_t __init consider_modules(
> > - uint64_t s, uint64_t e, uint32_t size, const struct boot_module mods[],
> > + uint64_t s, uint64_t e, uint32_t size, const struct boot_module *mods,
> > unsigned int nr_mods, unsigned int this_mod)
> > {
> > unsigned int i;
>
> While I'm okay-ish with the change, how are we going to make sure it won't be
> re-introduced? Or something similar be introduced elsewhere?
I'm afraid I don't have a good response, as I don't even know exactly
why the error triggers. We will rely on the CI to start doing
randconfig builds with UBSAN enabled (see patch 7/7).
Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |