linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
To: Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@huawei.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
	linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
	Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning non-void
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 05:56:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200ea6f7-0182-9da1-734c-c49102663ccc@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <051421e0-afe8-c6ca-95cd-4dc8cd20a43e@huawei.com>


On 6/15/21 8:15 PM, Zheng Zengkai wrote:
> Oops, Sorry for the late reply and missing the compilation details.
>
>> On 6/15/21 5:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:58 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Some implementations of BUG() are macros, not functions,
>>> Not "some", I think. Most.
>>>
>>>> so "unreachable" is not applicable AFAIK.
>>> Sure it is. One common pattern is the x86 one:
>>>
>>>    #define BUG()                                                   \
>>>    do {                                                            \
>>> instrumentation_begin();                                \
>>>            _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0);                                 \
>>> unreachable();                                          \
>>>    } while (0)
>> duh.
>>
>>> and that "unreachable()" is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> So I repeat: what completely broken compiler / config / architecture
>>> is it that needs that "return 0" after a BUG() statement?
>> I have seen it on ia64 -- most likely GCC 9.3.0, but I'll have to
>> double check that.
>
> Actually we build the kernel with the following compiler, config and 
> architecture :
>
> powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc --version
> powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0
> Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 
> PURPOSE.
>
> CONFIG_AFS_FS=y
> # CONFIG_AFS_DEBUG is not set
> CONFIG_AFS_DEBUG_CURSOR=y
>
> make ARCH=powerpc CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc64-linux-gnu- -j64
>
> ...
>
> fs/afs/dir.c: In function ‘afs_dir_set_page_dirty’:
> fs/afs/dir.c:51:1: error: no return statement in function returning 
> non-void [-Werror=return-type]
>    51 | }
>       | ^
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>
powerpc64 gcc 10.3.1 is what I used to find this problem.

A fix is to use the __noreturn attribute on this function and not add a 
return like this

-static int afs_dir_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
+static int __noreturn afs_dir_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)

and to the set of ~300 similar functions in these files.

$ grep -r -P "^\tBUG\(\)" .

If folks are ok with this, I'll get that set started.

Tom

>>> Because that environment is broken, and the warning is bogus and wrong.
>>>
>>> It might not be the compiler. It might be some architecture that does
>>> this wrong. It might be some very particular configuration that does
>>> something bad and makes the "unreachable()" not work (or not exist).
>>>
>>> But *that* is the bug that should be fixed. Not adding a pointless and
>>> incorrect line that makes no sense, just to hide the real bug.
>> .
>>
>


  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-16 12:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-15 11:55 [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning non-void David Howells
2021-06-15 12:03 ` David Howells
2021-06-15 14:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-15 23:58   ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-16  0:32     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-16  1:38       ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-16  2:19         ` Randy Dunlap
2021-06-16  3:15         ` Zheng Zengkai
2021-06-16 12:56           ` Tom Rix [this message]
2021-06-16 14:34             ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-16 16:22               ` Tom Rix
2021-06-16 16:29                 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-18 15:23                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-06-16 13:41           ` David Howells

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=200ea6f7-0182-9da1-734c-c49102663ccc@redhat.com \
    --to=trix@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=hulkci@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.dionne@auristor.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=zhengzengkai@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).