[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: X86: build failure


  • To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:47:20 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 07:47:37 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 17.12.2025 00:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 16/12/2025 11:35 pm, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I experience build failure with following Kconfig combination:
>>  CONFIG_DEBUG=n and CONFIG_XEN_IBT=n
>>
>> with gcc:
>>  gcc --version
>>  gcc (Ubuntu 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04.2) 11.4.0
>>  Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>  This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There
>> is NO
>>  warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> PURPOSE.
>>
>> Is this known issue?
>>
>> ====== log ===============
>>   CC      arch/x86/x86_emulate.o
>> In file included from arch/x86/x86_emulate.c:27:
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c: In function ‘x86_emulate’:
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:70:36: error: writing 1 byte into a
>> region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
>>    70 |     gcc11_wrap(ptr)[0 - PFX_BYTES] = ext < ext_8f08 ? 0xc4 :
>> 0x8f; \
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:78:9: note: in expansion of macro
>> ‘copy_VEX’
>>    78 |         copy_VEX(ptr, vex); \
>>       |         ^~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:8140:13: note: in expansion of
>> macro ‘copy_REX_VEX’
>>  8140 |             copy_REX_VEX(opc, rex_prefix, vex);
>>       |             ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>> In file included from arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:11,
>>                  from arch/x86/x86_emulate.c:27:
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/private.h:691:17: note: at offset [0, 4095] into
>> destination object of size [0, 9223372036854775807] allocated by
>> ‘map_domain_page’
>>   691 |     (stb).ptr = map_domain_page(_mfn(this_cpu(stubs.mfn))) + \
>>       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:60:21: note: in expansion of macro
>> ‘get_stub’
>>    60 |     uint8_t *buf_ = get_stub(stub); \
>>       |                     ^~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:3354:15: note: in expansion of
>> macro ‘init_prefixes’
>>  3354 |         opc = init_prefixes(stub);
>>       |               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/private.h:691:17: note: at offset [1, 4096] into
>> destination object of size [0, 9223372036854775807] allocated by
>> ‘map_domain_page’
>>   691 |     (stb).ptr = map_domain_page(_mfn(this_cpu(stubs.mfn))) + \
>>       |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:94:21: note: in expansion of macro
>> ‘get_stub’
>>    94 |     uint8_t *buf_ = get_stub(stub); \
>>       |                     ^~~~~~~~
>> arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c:3402:15: note: in expansion of
>> macro ‘init_evex’
>>  3402 |         opc = init_evex(stub);
>> [...]
>>
> 
> Hmm - that looks like more of the GCC 11 bounds bugs, but that's what
> the gcc11_wrap() visible at the top is supposed to be fixing.
> 
> Neither of those CONFIG options ought to be relevant.

CONFIG_DEBUG=n may well matter, due to the different -O<n> settings.
CONFIG_XEN_IBT=n otoh is indeed curious.

May want experimenting some starting from the pre-processed file. Grygorii,
could you generate that in your build env and then make it available
somewhere (together with the exact options passed to gcc when you observe
the build failure)?

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.