[PATCH 4.9 10/39] x86/oprofile: Fix bogus GCC-8 warning in nmi_setup() - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Martin Sebor <msebor@gcc.gnu.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 10/39] x86/oprofile: Fix bogus GCC-8 warning in nmi_setup()
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:20:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180226201644.124112415@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180226201643.660109883@linuxfoundation.org>

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

commit 85c615eb52222bc5fab6c7190d146bc59fac289e upstream.

GCC-8 shows a warning for the x86 oprofile code that copies per-CPU
data from CPU 0 to all other CPUs, which when building a non-SMP
kernel turns into a memcpy() with identical source and destination
pointers:

 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'mux_clone':
 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:285:2: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]
   memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).multiplex,
   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          per_cpu(cpu_msrs, 0).multiplex,
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          sizeof(struct op_msr) * model->num_virt_counters);
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c: In function 'nmi_setup':
 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:466:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]
 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c:470:3: error: 'memcpy' source argument is the same as destination [-Werror=restrict]

I have analyzed a number of such warnings now: some are valid and the
GCC warning is welcome. Others turned out to be false-positives, and
GCC was changed to not warn about those any more. This is a corner case
that is a false-positive but the GCC developers feel it's better to keep
warning about it.

In this case, it seems best to work around it by telling GCC
a little more clearly that this code path is never hit with
an IS_ENABLED() configuration check.

Cc:stable as we also want old kernels to build cleanly with GCC-8.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: oprofile-list@lists.sf.net
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180220205826.2008875-1-arnd@arndb.de
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
+++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_int.c
@@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ static int nmi_setup(void)
 		goto fail;
 
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		if (!cpu)
+		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || !cpu)
 			continue;
 
 		memcpy(per_cpu(cpu_msrs, cpu).counters,
