[removed a lot of people from the list of recipients, as this is mainly for Guenter] Hi Guenter! On 06.10.22 19:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:46:15PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Hamza Mahfooz wrote: >>> Address the following error: >>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/core/dc_stream.c: In function ‘dc_stream_remove_writeback’: >>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/core/dc_stream.c:527:55: error: array subscript [0, 0] is outside array bounds of ‘struct dc_writeback_info[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds] >>> 527 | stream->writeback_info[j] = stream->writeback_info[i]; >>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~ >>> In file included from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dc.h:1269, >>> from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/inc/core_types.h:29, >>> from ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/basics/dc_common.h:29, >>> from drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/core/dc_stream.c:27: >>> ./drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dc_stream.h:241:34: note: while referencing ‘writeback_info’ >>> 241 | struct dc_writeback_info writeback_info[MAX_DWB_PIPES]; >>> | >>> >>> Currently, we aren't checking to see if j remains within >>> writeback_info[]'s bounds. So, add a check to make sure that we aren't >>> overflowing the buffer. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hamza Mahfooz <hamza.mahfooz@xxxxxxx> >> >> With gcc 11.3, this patch doesn't fix a problem, it introduces one. >> >> Building csky:allmodconfig ... failed >> -------------- >> Error log: >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/core/dc_stream.c: In function 'dc_stream_remove_writeback': >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/core/dc_stream.c:527:83: error: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of 'struct dc_writeback_info[1]' [-Werror=array-bounds] >> 527 | stream->writeback_info[j] = stream->writeback_info[i]; > > [...] > > #regzbot introduced: 5d8c3e836fc2 Thx for using regzbot, much appreciated. JFYI, the initial report was your own mail you were replying to here, so a "#regzbot ^introduced: ..." would have been more appropriate. In this case it didn't matter anyway, as the fix didn't include a "Link:" tag to the initial report anyway. No worries, I just have to tell regzbot about the fix manually then: #regzbot fixed-by: faf4d8e07f5b67 Ciao, Thorsten
