From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch-check: fix long->int truncation when profiling branches
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:50:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180604165024.3be78887@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1805300818140.24812@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
On Wed, 30 May 2018 08:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> The function __builtin_expect returns long type (see the gcc
> documentation), and so do macros likely and unlikely. Unfortunatelly, when
> CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES is selected, the macros likely and
> unlikely expand to __branch_check__ and __branch_check__ truncates the
Nice catch.
> long type to int. This unintended truncation may cause bugs in various
> kernel code (we found a bug in dm-writecache because of it), so it's
I'm curious to what that bug was.
> better to fix __branch_check__ to return long.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Anyway, I can pull this in my tree and test it.
-- Steve
>
> ---
> include/linux/compiler.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/compiler.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/compiler.h 2018-02-26 20:34:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/compiler.h 2018-05-30 14:11:53.000000000 +0200
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_
> #define unlikely_notrace(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
>
> #define __branch_check__(x, expect, is_constant) ({ \
> - int ______r; \
> + long ______r; \
> static struct ftrace_likely_data \
> __attribute__((__aligned__(4))) \
> __attribute__((section("_ftrace_annotated_branch"))) \
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch-check: fix long->int truncation when profiling branches
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:50:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180604165024.3be78887@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1805300818140.24812@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
On Wed, 30 May 2018 08:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> The function __builtin_expect returns long type (see the gcc
> documentation), and so do macros likely and unlikely. Unfortunatelly, when
> CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES is selected, the macros likely and
> unlikely expand to __branch_check__ and __branch_check__ truncates the
Nice catch.
> long type to int. This unintended truncation may cause bugs in various
> kernel code (we found a bug in dm-writecache because of it), so it's
I'm curious to what that bug was.
> better to fix __branch_check__ to return long.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Anyway, I can pull this in my tree and test it.
-- Steve
>
> ---
> include/linux/compiler.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/compiler.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/compiler.h 2018-02-26 20:34:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/compiler.h 2018-05-30 14:11:53.000000000 +0200
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_
> #define unlikely_notrace(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
>
> #define __branch_check__(x, expect, is_constant) ({ \
> - int ______r; \
> + long ______r; \
> static struct ftrace_likely_data \
> __attribute__((__aligned__(4))) \
> __attribute__((section("_ftrace_annotated_branch"))) \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-04 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-28 15:54 [PATCH] dm: writecache: fix format string warning Arnd Bergmann
2018-05-28 15:54 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-05-29 18:09 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-05-30 12:13 ` [PATCH] " Mikulas Patocka
2018-05-30 12:19 ` [PATCH] branch-check: fix long->int truncation when profiling branches Mikulas Patocka
2018-06-04 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2018-06-04 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-06-04 20:54 ` Mikulas Patocka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180604165024.3be78887@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.