Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the btrfs tree

[David Sterba]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:52:26AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:09:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > [I am not sure why this error only popped up after I merged Andrew's
> > patch set ...]
> > 
> > After merging the btrfs tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > In file included from include/linux/string.h:253,
> >                  from include/linux/bitmap.h:11,
> >                  from include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/cpumask.h:5,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h:11,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:22,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h:5,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h:53,
> >                  from include/linux/thread_info.h:60,
> >                  from arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:7,
> >                  from include/linux/preempt.h:78,
> >                  from include/linux/spinlock.h:55,
> >                  from include/linux/wait.h:9,
> >                  from include/linux/mempool.h:8,
> >                  from include/linux/bio.h:8,
> >                  from fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:7:
> > In function 'memcpy',
> >     inlined from '_btrfs_ioctl_send' at fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4846:3:
> > include/linux/fortify-string.h:219:4: error: call to '__write_overflow' declared with attribute error: detected write beyond size of object (1st parameter)
> >   219 |    __write_overflow();
> >       |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > Caused by commit
> > 
> >   c8d9cdfc766d ("btrfs: send: prepare for v2 protocol")
> > 
> > This changes the "reserved" field of struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args from 4 u64's to 3, but the above memcpy is copying the "reserved" filed from a struct btrfs_ioctl_send_args_32 (4 u64s) into it.
> 
> I'll fix it in the next update. There are two structures for the ioctl
> that need to be in sync but I forgot to do that.

Now pushed with top commit 764ada31357678.

Also I think that next time you can use some older version of the
for-next branch instead of making the whole subsystem depend on BROKEN.
This causes much more harm in the testing setups that suddenly can't
work at all, compared to testing a few days older branch.