https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217522 --- Comment #3 from Darrick J. Wong (djwong@xxxxxxxxxx) --- On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 03:31:20AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217522 > > --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Lomov (lomov.vl@xxxxxxxx) --- > Hello > ** bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxx <bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxx> [2023-06-03 > 14:50:24 > +0000]: > > >https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217522 > > > >--- Comment #1 from Darrick J. Wong (djwong@xxxxxxxxxx) --- > >On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 03:58:25AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217522 > >> > >> Bug ID: 217522 > >> Summary: xfs_attr3_leaf_add_work produces a warning > >> Product: File System > >> Version: 2.5 > >> Hardware: All > >> OS: Linux > >> Status: NEW > >> Severity: normal > >> Priority: P3 > >> Component: XFS > >> Assignee: filesystem_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Reporter: lomov.vl@xxxxxxxx > >> Regression: No > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> While running linux-next > >> (6.4.0-rc4-next-20230602-1-next-git-06849-gbc708bbd8260) on one of my > hosts, > >> I > >> see the following message in the kernel log (`dmesg`): > >> ``` > >> Jun 02 20:01:19 smoon.bkoty.ru kernel: ------------[ cut here > ]------------ > >> Jun 02 20:01:19 smoon.bkoty.ru kernel: memcpy: detected field-spanning > write > >> (size 12) of single field "(char *)name_loc->nameval" at > > > > Yes, this bug is a collision between the bad old ways of doing flex > > arrays: > > > > typedef struct xfs_attr_leaf_name_local { > > __be16 valuelen; /* number of bytes in value */ > > __u8 namelen; /* length of name bytes */ > > __u8 nameval[1]; /* name/value bytes */ > > } xfs_attr_leaf_name_local_t; > > > And the static checking that gcc/llvm purport to be able to do properly. > > Something similar has caused problems with kernel compilation before: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/5/24/576 (I'm not 100% sure if the origin is the > same though). Yup. > > This is encoded into the ondisk structures, which means that someone > > needs to do perform a deep audit to change each array[1] into an > > array[] and then ensure that every sizeof() performed on those structure > > definitions has been adjusted. Then they would need to run the full QA > > test suite to ensure that no regressions have been introduced. Then > > someone will need to track down any code using > > /usr/include/xfs/xfs_da_format.h to let them know about the silent > > compiler bomb heading their way. > > > I prefer we leave it as-is since this code has been running for years > > with no problems. > > Should I assume that this problem is not significant and won't have any > effect > to the FS and won't cause the FS to misbehave or become corrupted? If so, why > does the problem only show up on one host but not on the other? Or is this a > runtime check, and it somehow happens on the first system (even rebooted > twice), but not on the second one. AFAICT, there's no real memory corruption problem here; it's just that the compiler treats array[1] as a single-element array instead of turning on whatever magic enables it to handle flexarrays (aka array[] or array[0]). I don't know why you'd ever want a real single-element array, but legacy C is fun like that. :/ --D > [...] > > --- > Vladimir Lomov > > -- > You may reply to this email to add a comment. > > You are receiving this mail because: > You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
