Messages in this thread | | | From | Miguel Ojeda <> | Date | Sat, 10 Mar 2018 08:03:47 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in min()/max() |
| |
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: >> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values >>>> (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the compiler >>>> thinks this is a dynamic calculation due to the single-eval logic, which >>>> is not needed in the literal case. This change removes several accidental >>>> stack VLAs from an x86 allmodconfig build: >>>> >>>> $ diff -u before.txt after.txt | grep ^- >>>> -drivers/input/touchscreen/cyttsp4_core.c:871:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘ids’ [-Wvla] >>>> -fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:344:4: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘namebuf’ [-Wvla] >>>> -lib/vsprintf.c:747:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘sym’ [-Wvla] >>>> -net/ipv4/proc.c:403:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla] >>>> -net/ipv6/proc.c:198:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla] >>>> -net/ipv6/proc.c:218:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’ [-Wvla] >>>> >>>> Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf. >>> >>> v1, v2 and v3 of this patch all fail with gcc-4.4.4: >>> >>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h: In function 'jiffies_delta_to_clock_t': >>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h:444: error: first argument to '__builtin_choose_expr' not a constant >> >> >> I'm seeing that problem with >>> gcc --version >> gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5 > > Same here, 4.8.5 fails. gcc 5.4.1 seems to work. I compiled a minimal > 5.1.0 and it seems to work as well. >
Just compiled 4.9.0 and it seems to work -- so that would be the minimum required.
Sigh...
Some enterprise distros are either already shipping gcc >= 5 or will probably be shipping it soon (e.g. RHEL 8), so how much does it hurt to ask for a newer gcc? Are there many users/companies out there using enterprise distributions' gcc to compile and run the very latest kernels?
Miguel
| |