On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:42:44 +0800 Walter Wu <walter-zh.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Compiling with gcc-9.2.1 points out below warnings.
>
> In function 'memmove',
> inlined from 'kmalloc_memmove_invalid_size' at lib/test_kasan.c:301:2:
> include/linux/string.h:441:9: warning: '__builtin_memmove' specified
> bound 18446744073709551614 exceeds maximum object size
> 9223372036854775807 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
>
> Why generate this warnings?
> Because our test function deliberately pass a negative number in memmove(),
> so we need to make it "volatile" so that compiler doesn't see it.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/lib/test_kasan.c
> +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c
> @@ -289,6 +289,7 @@ static noinline void __init kmalloc_memmove_invalid_size(void)
> {
> char *ptr;
> size_t size = 64;
> + volatile size_t invalid_size = -2;
>
> pr_info("invalid size in memmove\n");
> ptr = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -298,7 +299,7 @@ static noinline void __init kmalloc_memmove_invalid_size(void)
> }
>
> memset((char *)ptr, 0, 64);
> - memmove((char *)ptr, (char *)ptr + 4, -2);
> + memmove((char *)ptr, (char *)ptr + 4, invalid_size);
> kfree(ptr);
> }
Huh. Why does this trick suppress the warning?
Do we have any guarantee that this it will contiue to work in future
gcc's?
