[PATCH] powerpc/boot: Use address-of operator on section symbols
Nathan Chancellor
natechancellor at gmail.com
Sun Jul 19 01:31:29 AEST 2020
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor at gmail.com> wrote:
> > arch/powerpc/boot/main.c:107:18: warning: array comparison always
> > evaluates to a constant [-Wtautological-compare]
> > if (_initrd_end > _initrd_start) {
> > ^
> > arch/powerpc/boot/main.c:155:20: warning: array comparison always
> > evaluates to a constant [-Wtautological-compare]
> > if (_esm_blob_end <= _esm_blob_start)
> > ^
> > 2 warnings generated.
> >
> > These are not true arrays, they are linker defined symbols, which are
> > just addresses. Using the address of operator silences the warning
> > and does not change the resulting assembly with either clang/ld.lld
> > or gcc/ld (tested with diff + objdump -Dr).
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/212
> > Reported-by: Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor at gmail.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/boot/main.c | 4 ++--
> > arch/powerpc/boot/ps3.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/main.c b/arch/powerpc/boot/main.c
> > index a9d209135975..cae31a6e8f02 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/main.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/main.c
> > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static struct addr_range prep_initrd(struct addr_range vmlinux, void *chosen,
> > {
> > /* If we have an image attached to us, it overrides anything
> > * supplied by the loader. */
> > - if (_initrd_end > _initrd_start) {
> > + if (&_initrd_end > &_initrd_start) {
> >
>
> Are you sure that fix is correct?
>
> extern char _initrd_start[];
> extern char _initrd_end[];
> extern char _esm_blob_start[];
> extern char _esm_blob_end[];
>
> Of course the result of their comparison is a constant, as the addresses
> are constant. If clangs warns about it, perhaps that warning should be moved
> to W=1?
>
> But adding "&" is not correct, according to C.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
Hi Geert,
Yes, I have done fairly extensive testing in the past to verify that
this fix is correct.
For example:
$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>
extern char _test[];
int main(void)
{
printf("_test: %p\n", _test);
printf("&_test: %p\n", &_test);
return 0;
}
$ cat test.lds
_test = .;
$ clang -Wl,-T test.lds test.c
$ ./a.out
_test: 0x204
&_test: 0x204
$ gcc -fuse-ld=lld -Wl,-T test.lds test.c
$ ./a.out
_test: 0x60a0f76301fb
&_test: 0x60a0f76301fb
I also did runtime verification in QEMU to confirm this is true when I
was testing these commits, which are already present in Linus' tree:
63174f61dfae ("kernel/extable.c: use address-of operator on section symbols")
bf2cbe044da2 ("tracing: Use address-of operator on section symbols")
8306b057a85e ("lib/dynamic_debug.c: use address-of operator on section symbols")
b0d14fc43d39 ("mm/kmemleak.c: use address-of operator on section symbols")
I did a lot of work to get this warning enabled as it can find bugs:
6def1a1d2d58 ("fanotify: Fix the checks in fanotify_fsid_equal")
79ba4f931067 ("IB/hfi1: Fix logical condition in msix_request_irq")
-Wno-tautological-compare disables a bunch of good subwarnings, as I
point out in the commit that enabled it:
afe956c577b2 ("kbuild: Enable -Wtautological-compare")
Cheers,
Nathan
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list