Both sparse and smatch identify themselves as gcc. However, neither static analyzer supports any of the __builtin_*_overflow() functions. Hence do not define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW for these static checkers.
Fixes: f0907827a8a9 ("compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code") Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bart.vanassche@wdc.com Cc: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Cc: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org Cc: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- include/linux/compiler-gcc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h index f1a7492a5cc8..15e55b89e952 100644 --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h @@ -344,6 +344,6 @@ */ #define uninitialized_var(x) x = x
-#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 +#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 && !defined(__CHECKER__) #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1 #endif
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:57:26AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Both sparse and smatch identify themselves as gcc. However, neither static analyzer supports any of the __builtin_*_overflow() functions. Hence do not define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW for these static checkers.
Fixes: f0907827a8a9 ("compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code") Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bart.vanassche@wdc.com Cc: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Cc: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org Cc: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
include/linux/compiler-gcc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h index f1a7492a5cc8..15e55b89e952 100644 --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h @@ -344,6 +344,6 @@ */ #define uninitialized_var(x) x = x -#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 +#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 && !defined(__CHECKER__) #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
#endif
Hi,
A similar patch has already been posted 2 or 3 weeks ago [1].
Also, the development version of sparse [2] supports the __builtin_*_overflow() functions *and* supports the __has_builtin() macro. So I think it's preferable to use __has_builtin(), at least for sparse (maybe smatch is interested in it too).
-- Luc Van Oostenryck
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.LSU.2.21.1806071258310.7958@pobox.suse.c... [2] git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git
On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 19:31 +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:57:26AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Both sparse and smatch identify themselves as gcc. However, neither static analyzer supports any of the __builtin_*_overflow() functions. Hence do not define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW for these static checkers.
Fixes: f0907827a8a9 ("compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code") Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche bart.vanassche@wdc.com Cc: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Cc: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org Cc: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
include/linux/compiler-gcc.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h index f1a7492a5cc8..15e55b89e952 100644 --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc.h @@ -344,6 +344,6 @@ */ #define uninitialized_var(x) x = x -#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 +#if GCC_VERSION >= 50100 && !defined(__CHECKER__) #define COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW 1
#endif
Hi,
A similar patch has already been posted 2 or 3 weeks ago [1].
Also, the development version of sparse [2] supports the __builtin_*_overflow() functions *and* supports the __has_builtin() macro. So I think it's preferable to use __has_builtin(), at least for sparse (maybe smatch is interested in it too).
-- Luc Van Oostenryck
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.LSU.2.21.1806071258310.7958@pobox.suse.c... [2] git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git
Hello Luc,
Thanks, I had missed Miroslav's patch. BTW, which sparse repository do you recommend that I pull from to obtain a recent and stable version of sparse? The git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/sparse.git repository mentioned on https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page, https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse or https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse-dev?
Thanks,
Bart.
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:38:33PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Hello Luc,
Thanks, I had missed Miroslav's patch. BTW, which sparse repository do you recommend that I pull from to obtain a recent and stable version of sparse? The git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/sparse.git repository mentioned on https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page, https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse or https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse-dev?
Thanks,
The tree at: https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse-dev is my own development/work-in-progrees tree. It mainly contains my WIP topic branches. These branches are not stable and are rebased. I mainly use this tree to share patch series for testing & review.
The official tree is the one on kernel.org: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/sparse.git and is stable and relatively recent but: 1) it lacks some essential patches to avoid tons of useless noises, like for example the patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10334355/ 2) it lacks numerous fixes and improvements, like these overflow builtins, but many others too. 3) Christopher, the maintainer, is AWOL since a few months. He even never sent an announcement for the last release.
So, I collect patches from myself and from others in the tree: git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git https://github.com/lucvoo/sparse This tree is stable, very well tested, never rebased and contains numerous fixes and improvements.
Of course, ideally, my stable tree should be merged into the official tree, like Linus already asked Chris to do (twice). But for now, I strongly suggest to use my stable & up-to-date tree on github: git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git
Sorry if the situation is a bit confusing. I'm far from being satisfied with it myself.
-- Luc Van Oostenryck
On Sat, 2018-07-07 at 00:46 +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
- it lacks some essential patches to avoid tons of useless noises, like for example the patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10334355/
Hello Luc,
To suppress the sizeof(void) warnings I sent the following patch to Linus: "[PATCH] kernel.h: Avoid that sparse complains about using sizeof(void)" (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180705161709.17028-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com/). Please advise how to proceed with that patch.
Thanks,
Bart.
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 10:53:08PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Sat, 2018-07-07 at 00:46 +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
- it lacks some essential patches to avoid tons of useless noises, like for example the patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10334355/
Hello Luc,
To suppress the sizeof(void) warnings I sent the following patch to Linus: "[PATCH] kernel.h: Avoid that sparse complains about using sizeof(void)" (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180705161709.17028-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com/). Please advise how to proceed with that patch.
The problems I have with this patch are: 1) it increases the difference between the code as seen by sparse and the one seen by GCC. It's fine as temporary band-aid but this kind of patches tend to stay forever. 2) it shouldn't really be needed because someone, Joey Pabalinas, has already, several months ago, done what is needed on sparse's side to suppress this warning as soon as it became a problem.
Of course, the real solution would be to keep the maintenance pace of sparse's official better in synch with the kernel development Meanwhile, I understand very well the need of your patch.
-- Luc Van Oostenryck
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Bart Van Assche -
Bart Van Assche
-
Luc Van Oostenryck