Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix build with scan-build

From: Masahiro Yamada
Date: Sat Jan 22 2022 - 07:06:33 EST

Next message: Marc Kleine-Budde: "Re: [PATCH] arm64: vdso: Fix "no previous prototype" warning"
Previous message: Andy Shevchenko: "Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Enable named interrupt smbus-alert for ACPI"
In reply to: Nathan Chancellor: "Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix build with scan-build"
Next in thread: Nathan Chancellor: "Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix build with scan-build"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 1:47 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
> > On 1/20/2022 12:08 AM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 02:19:39PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 02:51:47PM +0100, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
> > > > > When building kernel with scan-build for analysis:
> > > > > $ scan-build make defconfig
> > > > > $ scan-build make menuconfig # disable RETPOLINE
> > > > > $ scan-build make -j16 bindeb-pkg
> > > > > since commit 7d73c3e9c514 ("Makefile: remove stale cc-option checks")
> > > > > it fails with:
> > > > > CC scripts/mod/empty.o
> > > > > could not find clang line
> > > > > make[4]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:287: scripts/mod/empty.o] Error 1
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like changes to how -fconserve-stack support was detected broke
> > > > > build with scan-build. Revert part of mentioned commit which changed
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 7d73c3e9c514 ("Makefile: remove stale cc-option checks")
> > > > > CC: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Makefile | 4 +---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > > > index 765115c99655..1174ccd182f5 100644
> > > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -991,9 +991,7 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-strict-overflow
> > > > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-stack-check
> > > > > # conserve stack if available
> > > > > -ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
> > > > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fconserve-stack
> > > > > -endif
> > > > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fconserve-stack)
> > > > > # Prohibit date/time macros, which would make the build non-deterministic
> > > > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Werror=date-time
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I think I understand why this happens...
> > > >
> > > > scan-build points CC to its CC wrapper [1], ccc-analyzer, which builds the
> > > > code with a compiler [2] then runs clang for the static analyzer [3].
> > > > The problem is that the default compiler for ccc-analyzer is GCC, which
> > > > means that CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC gets set and flags that are supported by GCC
> > > > but not clang will cause the clang analyzer part of ccc-analyzer to
> > > > error because ccc-analyzer just passes all '-f' flags along [4].
> > > >
> > > > Prior to 7d73c3e9c514, there was no error because cc-option would run
> > > > the flag against ccc-analyzer, which would error out for the reason I
> > > > just described, which would prevent the flag from getting added to
> > > > KBUILD_CFLAGS.
> > > >
> > > > Now, -fconserve-stack gets passed along to both gcc and clang but clang
> > > > does not recognize it and errors out.
> > > >
> > > > This should be fixed in clang, which already has the machinery to
> > > > recognize but ignore GCC flags for compatibility reasons (which is
> > > > probably how gcc and clang can use the same flags). I have pushed a
> > > > patch to Phabricator for review:
> > > >
> > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D117717
> > > >
> > > > You need to disable CONFIG_RETPOLINE for the same reason but I don't
> > > > think working around that in clang is as simple.
> > > >
> > > > Until that fix can proliferate through distributions and such, this is
> > > > not an unreasonable workaround (unless Masahiro or Nick have a better
> > > > idea) but I would really like a comment so that we can revert this once
> > > > that fix is more widely available (it is unlikely that clang will
> > > > actually support this option).
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/3062a1469da0569e714aa4634b29345f6d8c874c/clang/tools/scan-build/bin/scan-build#L1080
> > > > [2]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/fd0782a37bbf7dd4ece721df92c703a381595661/clang/tools/scan-build/libexec/ccc-analyzer#L457
> > > > [3]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/fd0782a37bbf7dd4ece721df92c703a381595661/clang/tools/scan-build/libexec/ccc-analyzer#L783
> > > > [4]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/fd0782a37bbf7dd4ece721df92c703a381595661/clang/tools/scan-build/libexec/ccc-analyzer#L661-L665
> > >
> > > Thinking more about this after Fangrui commented on the clang patch
> > > above, using scan-build with GCC as the compiler is going to be hard to
> > > support, as we are basically trying to support using two different
> > > compilers with a unified set of '-f' flags, which I see as problematic
> > > for a few reasons.
> > >
> > > 1. It restricts our ability to do cc-option cleanups like Nick did.
> > >
> > > We should be eliminating cc-option calls that we know are specific to
> > > one compiler because checking the Kconfig variables (CONFIG_CC_IS_...)
> > > is much cheaper than invoking the compiler.
> > >
> > > 2. Necessary GCC specific flags will get dropped.
> > >
> > > Adding back the call to cc-option will allow the build to succeed but it
> > > drops the flag from KBUILD_CFLAGS. If there were ever a time where an
> > > '-f' flag was needed to get a working kernel with GCC, it would not get
> > > added because clang would reject it.
> > >
> > > We already have a static-analyzer target that requires using CC=clang so
> > > I think there is some precedent here to say we require the kernel to be
> > > built with clang to use the static analyzer. The fact that it did prior
> > > to 7d73c3e9c514 can just be chalked up to luck.
> > >
> > > $ make -j"$(nproc)" LLVM=1 defconfig bindeb-pkg static-analyzer
> > >
> > > would be the equivalent command to the original patch.
> > >
> > > You can still use scan-build with the '--use-cc=clang' flag, which will
> > > use clang for the compilation and analysis, if you so prefer.
> > >
> > > Masahiro and Nick may have further thoughts and I am open to other
> > > opinions but my vote is to say this is an issue we won't fix or
> > > workaround.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nathan
> >
> >
> > Thank you for detailed explanation. Well I guess question then is: how much
> > scan-build is supported? And if it should even support mixing clang and gcc?
> > Alternatively maybe use clang as default if CC environment variable is not
> > set?
>
> It probably shouldn't, as least not in the way that it currently does.
> Someone on the LLVM review I created suggested it should add a filter
> for flags that clang does not support from GCC. I think changing the
> default would be another good fix but doesn't fix the issue if someone
> does actually wants to use GCC for building.
>
> > What I like about scan-build is that it generates html report file.
>
> Ah, that is a good point.
>
> > '--use-cc=clang' worked fine for me.
> >
> > I've also tried
> > > $ make -j"$(nproc)" LLVM=1 defconfig bindeb-pkg static-analyzer
> > although there seems to be no static-analyzer target, I guess you meant
> > clang-analyzer instead, but although it seems to generate a lot of text on
> > terminal, it doesn't seem that useful to me. Not sure if this is expected?
>
> Yes, my apologies, it should have been clang-analyzer.
>
> > Quoting a piece of log:
> > ./include/linux/xarray.h:54:2: error: expected '(' after 'asm'
> > [clang-diagnostic-error]
> > WARN_ON((long)v < 0);
> > ^
> > ./include/asm-generic/bug.h:123:3: note: expanded from macro 'WARN_ON'
> > __WARN(); \
> > ^
> > ./include/asm-generic/bug.h:96:19: note: expanded from macro '__WARN'
> > #define __WARN() __WARN_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_TAINT(TAINT_WARN))
> > ^
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:79:2: note: expanded from macro '__WARN_FLAGS'
> > _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, BUGFLAG_WARNING|(flags)); \
> > ^
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:27:2: note: expanded from macro '_BUG_FLAGS'
> > asm_inline volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> > ^
> > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:281:24: note: expanded from macro
> > 'asm_inline'
> > #define asm_inline asm __inline
> > ^
> > ./include/linux/xarray.h:1616:2: error: expected '(' after 'asm'
> > [clang-diagnostic-error]
> > BUG_ON(order > 0);
> > ^
> > ./include/asm-generic/bug.h:65:57: note: expanded from macro 'BUG_ON'
> > #define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while (0)
> > ^
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:66:2: note: expanded from macro 'BUG'
> > _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0); \
> > ^
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:27:2: note: expanded from macro '_BUG_FLAGS'
> > asm_inline volatile("1:\t" ins "\n" \
> > ^
> > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:281:24: note: expanded from macro
> > 'asm_inline'
> > #define asm_inline asm __inline
> > ^
> > Found compiler error(s).
> > 21 errors generated.
> > Error while processing /home/xxxxxxxx/linux/drivers/hid/hid-ezkey.c.
> > error: too many errors emitted, stopping now [clang-diagnostic-error]
> > error: unknown argument: '-fno-stack-clash-protection'
> > [clang-diagnostic-error]
> > error: unknown warning option '-Wno-frame-address'; did you mean
> > '-Wno-address'? [clang-diagnostic-unknown-warning-option]
> > error: unknown warning option '-Wno-pointer-to-enum-cast'; did you mean
> > '-Wno-pointer-compare'? [clang-diagnostic-unknown-warning-option]
> >
> >
> > Unless I did something wrong, this doesn't seem that useful to me compared
> > to what I get from scan-build?
>
> I do not see that error but I have little experience with running the
> clang-analyzer target. It might be due to a difference between
> scan-build and clang-tidy? Regardless, it seems like you prefer reading
> the HTML report, so sticking with scan-build with the '--use-cc=clang'
> flag will be the way to go.
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan

As far as I understood, the conclusion is

[1] There is nothing to fix on the Kbuild side.
(So, this patch was rejected)

[2] If you want to use scan-build for kbuild,
"scan-build --use-cc=clang" should work properly.

The "disable RETPOLINE' workaround is also unneeded.

$ scan-build --use-cc=clang make -j16 defconfig bindeb-pkg

should be enough

[3] If scan-build supports mixed-compilers, it is up to LLVM community.
If they are happy, they will carry the pain of maintaining ignored flags.

The detection of retpoline flags is not working somehow.

$ /usr/share/clang/scan-build-13/bin/../libexec/ccc-analyzer
-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -c -x c /dev/null -o /dev/null
could not find clang line
$ /usr/share/clang/scan-build-13/bin/../libexec/ccc-analyzer
-mretpoline-external-thunk -c -x c /dev/null -o /dev/null
gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-mretpoline-external-thunk’

I think this should be fixed.

--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Next message: Marc Kleine-Budde: "Re: [PATCH] arm64: vdso: Fix "no previous prototype" warning"
Previous message: Andy Shevchenko: "Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Enable named interrupt smbus-alert for ACPI"
In reply to: Nathan Chancellor: "Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix build with scan-build"
Next in thread: Nathan Chancellor: "Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix build with scan-build"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]