On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 18:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > So inetaddr_event() assigns AF_INET so .sin_family and gcc warns about code > > that is only executed if .sin_family == AF_INET6? Since this warning is the > > result of incorrect interprocedural analysis by gcc, shouldn't this be > > reported as a bug to the gcc authors? > > I think the interprocedural analysis here is just a little worse than it could > be, but it's not actually correct. It's not gcc that prints the warning (if > it did, then I'd agree it would be a gcc bug) but the warning is triggered > intentionally by the fortified version of memcpy in include/linux/string.h. > > The problem as I understand it is that gcc cannot guarantee that it > tracks the value of addr->sa_family at least as far as the size of the > stack object, and it has no strict reason to do so, so the inlined > rdma_ip2gid() will still contain both cases. Hello Arnd, Had you already considered to uninline the rdma_ip2gid() function? Bart.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
