On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:40:31AM +0300, Nemanov, Michael wrote: > On 6/15/2024 11:51 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > ... > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > allmodconfig builds on x86_64 with gcc-13 flag the following: > > > > In file included from ./include/linux/string.h:374, > > from ./include/linux/bitmap.h:13, > > from ./include/linux/cpumask.h:13, > > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h:21, > > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h:60, > > from ./include/linux/irqflags.h:18, > > from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:59, > > from ./include/linux/mmzone.h:8, > > from ./include/linux/gfp.h:7, > > from ./include/linux/firmware.h:8, > > from drivers/net/wireless/ti/cc33xx/init.c:6: > > In function 'fortify_memcpy_chk', > > inlined from 'cc33xx_init_vif_specific' at drivers/net/wireless/ti/cc33xx/init.c:156:2: > > ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:580:25: warning: call to '__read_overflow2_field' declared with attribute warning: detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning] > > 580 | __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In function 'fortify_memcpy_chk', > > inlined from 'cc33xx_init_vif_specific' at drivers/net/wireless/ti/cc33xx/init.c:157:2: > > ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:580:25: warning: call to '__read_overflow2_field' declared with attribute warning: detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning] > > 580 | __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > CC [M] drivers/net/wireless/ti/cc33xx/rx.o > > > > I believe that this is because the destination for each of the two memcpy() > > calls immediately above is too narrow - 1 structure wide instead of 4 or 8. > > > > I think this can be resolved by either using: > > 1. struct_group in .../cc33xx/conf.h:struct conf_tx_settings > > to wrap ac_conf0 ... ac_conf3, and separately tid_conf0 ... tid_conf7. > > 2. Using arrays for ac_conf and tid_conf in > > .../cc33xx/conf.h:struct conf_tx_settings, in which case perhaps > > .../wlcore/conf.h:struct conf_tx_settings can be reused somehow > > (I did not check closely)? > > > > Thank you for checking. I agree this code should be rewritten so it is more > clear and w/o any warnings. Will fix. > > I was unsuccessful reproducing the warning on my end. Tried with GCC 13.2.0 > (ARCH=x86_64, allmodconfig) and Arm GNU Toolchain 13.2 (ARCH=arm, > allmodconfig) and only got errors in scan.c which I assume you refer to > below (will also be fixed). Hi Michael, I tried this again with GCC 13.2.0 on x86_64 with allmodconfig. And I was able to see this with a W=1 (make W=1) build. I don't think it is an important detail, but for reference, I am using the compiler here, on an x86_64 host. https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ > > Similar errors are flagged elsewhere in this series. > > Please take a look at allmodconfig builds and make sure > > no warnings are introduced. > > > > Lastly, more related to the series as a whole than this patch in > > particular, please consider running checkpatch.pl --codespell > > Sure, will add checkpatch.pl --codespell to my tests. Great, thanks.
