I have not lookend at the structs but CRIS is a bit unusual since it does no alignment what so ever. If a short is followed by an int will be unaligned like in a packed struct. Jesper or someone else will take a look at this specific issue. /Mikael > 29 mars 2016 kl. 00:47 skrev Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 08:59:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 02:43:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven >>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Below is the list of build error/warning regressions/improvements in >>>> v4.6-rc1[1] compared to v4.5[2]. >>>> >>>> Summarized: >>>> - build errors: +9/-6 >>> >>>> [1] http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/10114/ (all 262 configs) >>>> [2] http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/10047/ (all 262 configs) >>> >>>> 9 error regressions: >>>> + /home/kisskb/slave/src/fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h: error: call to >>>> '__compiletime_assert_79' declared with attribute error: XFS: >>>> sizeof(xfs_attr_shortform_t) is wrong, expected 8: => 79:2 >>> >>> cris-allyesconfig, cris-allmodconfig >> >> Yup, cris is the only platform that throws this error on this >> structure. It's an on-disk structure and relying on the gcc >> optimiser to do the same thing from release to release has become >> such a crap-shoot these days. Hence as a stop-gap measure we added >> build time checking of what they compiler is doing with those >> structures, and to refuse to build XFS if the compiler/platform is >> doing something obviously different. >> >> Modernising the on-disk structure definitions is on the list of >> things to do, but it's nowhere near the top of my list at the >> moment... > > I have a test patch that (for now) changes the ondisk format checks for the > variable-length structures to look at the offsets of the non-variable-length > fields. Can you give it a try? > > (No idea if it fixes fixes cris, but it passes the six arches that I can > actually test on (x86/power/arm)). The downside is that it does nothing about > troubling implication that there could be computers writing out a disk format > that's incompatible with x86 XFSes...) > > --D > ----------- > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [PATCH] xfs: check offsets of variable length structures > > Some of the directory/attr structures contain variable-length objects, > so the enclosing structure doesn't have a meaningful fixed size at > compile time. We can check the offsets of the members before the > variable-length member, so do those. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h > index 960648b..3742216 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ondisk.h > @@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(sizeof(structname) != (size), "XFS: sizeof(" \ > #structname ") is wrong, expected " #size) > > +#define XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(structname, member, off) \ > + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(offsetof(structname, member) != (off), \ > + "XFS: offsetof(" #structname ", " #member ") is wrong, " \ > + "expected " #off) > + > static inline void __init > xfs_check_ondisk_structs(void) > { > @@ -81,15 +86,28 @@ xfs_check_ondisk_structs(void) > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t, 12); > */ > > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_local_t, valuelen, 0); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_local_t, namelen, 2); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_local_t, nameval, 3); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t, valueblk, 0); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t, valuelen, 4); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t, namelen, 8); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote_t, name, 9); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_attr_leafblock_t, 40); > - XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_attr_shortform_t, 8); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, hdr.totsize, 0); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, hdr.count, 2); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, list[0].namelen, 4); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, list[0].valuelen, 5); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, list[0].flags, 6); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_attr_shortform_t, list[0].nameval, 7); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_da_blkinfo_t, 12); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_da_intnode_t, 16); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_da_node_entry_t, 8); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_da_node_hdr_t, 16); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_data_free_t, 4); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_data_hdr_t, 16); > - XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_data_unused_t, 6); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_dir2_data_unused_t, freetag, 0); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_dir2_data_unused_t, length, 2); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_free_hdr_t, 16); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_free_t, 16); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_ino4_t, 4); > @@ -100,6 +118,9 @@ xfs_check_ondisk_structs(void) > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_leaf_t, 16); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_leaf_tail_t, 4); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t, 3); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t, namelen, 0); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t, offset, 1); > + XFS_CHECK_OFFSET(xfs_dir2_sf_entry_t, name, 3); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_sf_hdr_t, 10); > XFS_CHECK_STRUCT_SIZE(xfs_dir2_sf_off_t, 2); > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
