[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 |