On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 02:35:40PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> gcc warns about potentially undefined behavior in an array index:
>
> mm/vmalloc.c: In function 'vmap_pfn_apply':
> mm/vmalloc.c:2800:58: error: operation on 'data->idx' may be undefined [-Werror=sequence-point]
> 2800 | *pte = pte_mkspecial(pfn_pte(data->pfns[data->idx++], data->prot));
> | ~~~~~~~~~^~
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-types.h:25:37: note: in definition of macro '__pte'
> 25 | #define __pte(x) ((pte_t) { (x) } )
> | ^
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h:80:15: note: in expansion of macro '__phys_to_pte_val'
> 80 | __pte(__phys_to_pte_val((phys_addr_t)(pfn) << PAGE_SHIFT) | pgprot_val(prot))
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> mm/vmalloc.c:2800:30: note: in expansion of macro 'pfn_pte'
> 2800 | *pte = pte_mkspecial(pfn_pte(data->pfns[data->idx++], data->prot));
> | ^~~~~~~
>
> This only appeared in one randconfig build so far, and I don't know
> what caused it, but moving the index increment out of the expression
> at least addresses the warning.
Would that randconfig include CONFIG_ARM64_PA_BITS_52?
#define __phys_to_pte_val(phys) (((phys) | ((phys) >> 36)) & PTE_ADDR_MASK)
because that's going to double-increment idx. Or single increment.
Or whatever else the compiler feels like doing.
