Re: [PATCH] Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds

[Guenter Roeck]

On 9/8/21 2:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:16 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 9/7/21 9:48 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 09:28:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > >       memcpy(eth_addr, sanitize_address((void *) 0xfffc1f2c), ETH_ALEN);
> > > > >
> > > > > but that just seems weird. Is there a better solution ?
> > > >
> > > > (char (*)[ETH_ALEN])?  Said that, shouldn't that be doing something like
> > > > ioremap(), rather than casting explicit constants?
> > >
> > > Typecasts or even assigning the address to a variable does not help.
> > > The sanitizer function can not be static either.
> >
> > So it can only be fixed by obfuscating the constant address in a
> > chain of out-of-line functions...
> > How is this compiler to be used for bare-metal programming?
>
> I reported this as a gcc bug when I first saw it back in March:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
>
> Martin Sebor suggested marking the pointer as 'volatile' as a workaround,
> which is probably fine for bare-metal programming, but I would consider
> that bad style for the kernel boot arguments. The RELOC_HIDE trick is probably
> fine here, as there are only a couple of instances, and for the network
> driver, using volatile is probably appropriate as well.
>
> I still hope this can be fixed in a future gcc-11.x release. Maybe we should
> add further instances of the problem on the gcc bug to boost the priority?
>
> > > I don't know the hardware, so I can not answer the ioremap() question.
> >
> > Yes it should.  But this driver dates back to 2.1.110, when only
> > half of the architectures already had ioremap().
>
> How does  mvme16x even create the mapping? Is this a virtual address
> that is hardwired to the bus or do you have a static mapping somewhere?
> I see two other drivers accessing the nvram here
>
> arch/m68k/mvme16x/config.c:static MK48T08ptr_t volatile rtc =
> (MK48T08ptr_t)MVME_RTC_BASE;

Is that even correct ? I am always shaky with qualifiers, but doesn't
that mean that the pointer is volatile, not the object it points to ?

> arch/m68k/mvme16x/rtc.c:        volatile MK48T08ptr_t rtc =
> (MK48T08ptr_t)MVME_RTC_BASE;
>
> The same trick should work here, just create a local variable with a
> volatile pointer and read from that.

I had tried that; it doesn't work because then the compiler complains
that the 'volatile' qualifier is discarded when passing the argument.

drivers/net/ethernet/i825xx/82596.c: In function 'i82596_probe':
drivers/net/ethernet/i825xx/82596.c:1147:34: error:
	passing argument 2 of '__builtin_memcpy' discards 'volatile' qualifier from pointer target type

Oddly enough, a memcpy on the 'rtc' variable doesn't fail,
neither with nor without volatile. Something else is going on.

Guenter