Re: [REGRESSION][BISECTED] erroneous buffer overflow detected in bch2_xattr_validate

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:33 AM Jan Hendrik Farr <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think I prefer
>
>         depends on !(CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION < 190103)
>
> to make it more clear that the purpose is to disable this for clang
> versions below 19.1.3, but keep it enabled for every other compiler
> including pre-release gcc versions that pass the compile test.

Do we want other tooling to see the attribute? i.e. if the build check
gets removed, then that `depends on` would mean other tooling would
see it, right?

> Also after gcc 15 is released I don't think a version check for gcc
> should be necessary. I only see an explicit version check as required
> when we know a certain version is broken. Otherwise I would prefer using
> the build test.

Yeah, build tests are nice, although they require spawning a process
and so on, which (as far as I understand) we try to minimize. Version
checks also have the advantage that it is easy to remember/check when
we can remove the checks themselves when we upgrade the minimum
versions.

> I guess an alternative would be to just create a
> CC_COUNTED_BY_BROKEN that is enabled for clang versions below 19.1.3
> and continue to use __has_attribute together with that option. That
> would make the build test unnecesarry. The downside is that it
> will require checking both __has_attribute and
> CONFIG_CC_COUNTED_BY_BROKEN for __counted_by support. So I think
> CC_HAS_COUNTED_BY is better.

Yeah, if we are going to need a new Kconfig symbol anyway, then let's
make that the only thing to check. Otherwise we are in the "worst of
both worlds", I would say.

> I'll submit it once Bill's fix is in the release/19.x branch. Which
> maintainer should I address this too? You (Nathan), Miguel, Kees, or
> someone else?

Sounds good -- if you want, you can send it to all of us and we can
figure that out later.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel