The patch titled
Subject: build_bug.h: remove most of dummy BUILD_BUG_ON stubs for Sparse
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
build_bugh-remove-most-of-dummy-build_bug_on-stubs-for-sparse.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: build_bug.h: remove most of dummy BUILD_BUG_ON stubs for Sparse
The introduction of these dummy BUILD_BUG_ON stubs dates back to
903c0c7cdc21 ("sparse: define dummy BUILD_BUG_ON definition for sparse").
At that time, BUILD_BUG_ON() was implemented with the negative array trick
*and* the link-time trick, like this:
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
do { \
((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)])); \
if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1; \
} while(0)
Sparse is more strict about the negative array trick than GCC because
Sparse requires the array length to be really constant.
Here is the simple test code for the macro above:
static const int x = 0;
BUILD_BUG_ON(x);
GCC is absolutely fine with it (-Wvla was enabled only very recently),
but Sparse warns like this:
error: bad constant expression
error: cannot size expression
(If you are using a newer version of Sparse, you will see a different
warning message, "warning: Variable length array is used".)
Anyway, Sparse was producing many false positives, and noisier than
it should be at that time.
With the previous commit, the leftover negative array trick is gone.
Sparse is fine with the current BUILD_BUG_ON(), which is implemented by
using the 'error' attribute.
I am keeping the stub for BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(). Otherwise, Sparse would
complain about the following code, which GCC is fine with:
static const int x = 0;
int y = BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(x);
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1542856462-18836-3-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/build_bug.h | 22 +++++++---------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/build_bug.h~build_bugh-remove-most-of-dummy-build_bug_on-stubs-for-sparse
+++ a/include/linux/build_bug.h
@@ -5,21 +5,8 @@
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#ifdef __CHECKER__
-#define __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) (0)
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) (0)
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (0)
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(e) (0)
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) (0)
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) (0)
-#define BUILD_BUG() (0)
#else /* __CHECKER__ */
-
-/* Force a compilation error if a constant expression is not a power of 2 */
-#define __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) \
- BUILD_BUG_ON(((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0)
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) \
- BUILD_BUG_ON((n) == 0 || (((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0))
-
/*
* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
* result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
@@ -27,6 +14,13 @@
* aren't permitted).
*/
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:(-!!(e)); }))
+#endif /* __CHECKER__ */
+
+/* Force a compilation error if a constant expression is not a power of 2 */
+#define __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0)
+#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON((n) == 0 || (((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0))
/*
* BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID() permits the compiler to check the validity of the
@@ -64,6 +58,4 @@
*/
#define BUILD_BUG() BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1, "BUILD_BUG failed")
-#endif /* __CHECKER__ */
-
#endif /* _LINUX_BUILD_BUG_H */
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
