From: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] waitqueue: fix clang -Wuninitialized warnings
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:54:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712075438.GA88904@archlinux-threadripper> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2ZRw9B=X76yL-bRzC+01z6VaHDzPAhQQw7V9MXtkp+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:10:55 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> > <scratches head>
> >
> > Surely clang is being extraordinarily dumb here?
> >
> > DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK() is effectively doing
> >
> > struct wait_queue_head name = ({ __init_waitqueue_head(&name) ; name; })
> >
> > which is perfectly legitimate! clang has no business assuming that
> > __init_waitqueue_head() will do any reads from the pointer which it was
> > passed, nor can clang assume that __init_waitqueue_head() leaves any of
> > *name uninitialized.
> >
> > Does it also warn if code does this?
> >
> > struct wait_queue_head name;
> > __init_waitqueue_head(&name);
> > name = name;
> >
> > which is equivalent, isn't it?
>
> No, it does not warn for this.
>
> I've tried a few more variants here: https://godbolt.org/z/ykSX0r
>
> What I think is going on here is a result of clang and gcc fundamentally
> treating -Wuninitialized warnings differently. gcc tries to make the warnings
> as helpful as possible, but given the NP-complete nature of this problem
> it won't always get it right, and it traditionally allowed this syntax as a
> workaround.
>
> int f(void)
> {
> int i = i; // tell gcc not to warn
> return i;
> }
>
> clang apparently implements the warnings in a way that is as
> completely predictable (and won't warn in cases that it
> doesn't completely understand), but decided as a result that the
> gcc 'int i = i' syntax is bogus and it always warns about a variable
> used in its own declaration that is later referenced, without looking
> at whether the declaration does initialize it or not.
>
> > The proposed solution is, effectively, to open-code
> > __init_waitqueue_head() at each DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK()
> > callsite. That's pretty unpleasant and calls for an explanatory
> > comment at the __WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INIT_ONSTACK() definition site as well
> > as a cautionary comment at the __init_waitqueue_head() definition so we
> > can keep the two versions in sync as code evolves.
>
> Yes, makes sense.
>
> > Hopefully clang will soon be hit with the cluebat (yes?) and this
> > change becomes obsolete in the quite short term. Surely 6-12 months
> > from now nobody will be using the uncluebatted version of clang on
> > contemporary kernel sources so we get to remove this nastiness again.
> > Which makes me wonder whether we should merge it at all.
>
> Would it make you feel better to keep the current code but have an alternative
> version guarded with e.g. "#if defined(__clang__ && (__clang_major__ <= 9)"?
>
> While it is probably a good idea to fix clang here, this is one of the last
> issues that causes a significant difference between gcc and clang in build
> testing with kernelci:
> https://kernelci.org/build/next/branch/master/kernel/next-20190709/
> I'm trying to get all the warnings fixed there so we can spot build-time
> regressions more easily.
>
> Arnd
I'm just spitballing here since I am about to go to sleep but could we
do something like you did for bee20031772a ("disable -Wattribute-alias
warning for SYSCALL_DEFINEx()") and disable the warning in
DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK only since we know it is not going to
be a problem? That way, if/when Clang is fixed, we can just have the
warning be disabled for older versions?
Cheers,
Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-03 8:10 [PATCH] waitqueue: fix clang -Wuninitialized warnings Arnd Bergmann
2019-07-03 17:58 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-07-09 19:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-07-12 7:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 0:49 ` Andrew Morton
2019-07-12 7:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-07-12 7:54 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2019-07-12 14:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-07-12 16:48 ` Nick Desaulniers
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=20190712075438.GA88904@archlinux-threadripper \
--to=natechancellor@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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).