* gcc 9.0.0 build issues
@ 2019-02-01 19:34 Petr Lautrbach
2019-02-01 20:24 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-01 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: selinux
gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide:
gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC)
$ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap
...
make[2]: Entering directory
'/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src'
cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE
-I../cil/include -fPIC -c -o genbools.o genbools.c
In function ‘strtrim’,
inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2:
genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying
8191 bytes from a string of length 8191
[-Werror=stringop-truncation]
24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
make[2]: Entering directory
'/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src'
cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE
-I../cil/include -fPIC -DSHARED -c -o genbools.lo genbools.c
In function ‘strtrim’,
inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2:
genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying
8191 bytes from a string of length 8191
[-Werror=stringop-truncation]
24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
make[2]: Entering directory
'/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src'
cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE
-DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c
In function ‘strtrim’,
inlined from ‘process_boolean’ at booleans.c:362:2:
booleans.c:335:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying
between 8188 and 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191
[-Werror=stringop-truncation]
335 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used:
$ cd libselinux
$ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap
...
make[1]: Entering directory
'/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src'
cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self
-Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas
-Wstrict-aliasing -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast
-Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var
-Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes
-Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero
-Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args
-Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow
-Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers
-Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral -Wframe-larger-than=32768
-fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option
-funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return
-Wno-redundant-decls -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op
-Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp
-Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc -Wsuggest-attribute=const
-Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn -Wsuggest-attribute=pure
-Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure
-Wno-suggest-attribute=const -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE
-DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c
booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’:
booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur
when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1
[-Werror=strict-overflow]
39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-01 19:34 gcc 9.0.0 build issues Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-01 20:24 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-07 12:40 ` Petr Lautrbach 2019-02-07 15:32 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2019-02-01 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Petr Lautrbach; +Cc: selinux On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> wrote: > gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > > gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > > $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap > ... > > make[2]: Entering directory > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src' > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -I../cil/include -fPIC -c -o genbools.o genbools.c > In function ‘strtrim’, > inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2: > genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > 24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This is a typical strncpy() abuse. See 'man strncpy' -> /NOTES for how to handle the corner case correctly (same for similar issues below). > ... > > make[2]: Entering directory > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src' > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -I../cil/include -fPIC -DSHARED -c -o genbools.lo genbools.c > In function ‘strtrim’, > inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2: > genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > 24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ... > > make[2]: Entering directory > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > In function ‘strtrim’, > inlined from ‘process_boolean’ at booleans.c:362:2: > booleans.c:335:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > between 8188 and 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > 335 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ... > > > > When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > > $ cd libselinux > > $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap > ... > > make[1]: Entering directory > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > > cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas > -Wstrict-aliasing -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast > -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes > -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn > -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs > -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return > -Wno-redundant-decls -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op > -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp > -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc -Wsuggest-attribute=const > -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn -Wsuggest-attribute=pure > -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure > -Wno-suggest-attribute=const -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 > [-Werror=strict-overflow] > 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least the warning message and source code location are super confusing, which is a bug on its own... -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-01 20:24 ` Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2019-02-07 12:40 ` Petr Lautrbach 2019-02-07 17:52 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-07 15:32 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-07 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: selinux; +Cc: Petr Lautrbach, William Roberts, Ondrej Mosnacek Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach > <plautrba@redhat.com> wrote: >> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: >> >> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) >> ... >> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: >> >> $ cd libselinux >> >> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap >> ... >> >> make[1]: Entering directory >> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' >> >> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security >> -Winit-self >> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas >> -Wstrict-aliasing -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast >> -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return >> -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes >> -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn >> -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs >> -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var >> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes >> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero >> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args >> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow >> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers >> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral >> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 >> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option >> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return >> -Wno-redundant-decls -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op >> -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp >> -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc >> -Wsuggest-attribute=const >> -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn -Wsuggest-attribute=pure >> -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure >> -Wno-suggest-attribute=const -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE >> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE >> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c >> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: >> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur >> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 >> [-Werror=strict-overflow] >> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very > least > the warning message and source code location are super > confusing, > which is a bug on its own... It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in libselinux/src/booleans.c: 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) 85: free(n[i]); It could be suppressed by something like this: --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent *d) int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { char path[PATH_MAX]; - int i, rc; + int i, j, rc; struct dirent **namelist; char **n; @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) free(namelist); return rc; bad_freen: - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) - free(n[i]); + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) + free(n[j]); free(n); bad: goto out; William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 12:40 ` Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-07 17:52 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-07 18:17 ` Stephen Smalley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-07 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Petr Lautrbach, selinux, sds; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek > -----Original Message----- > From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM > To: selinux@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C > <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > > Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> > > wrote: > >> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > >> > >> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > >> > ... > >> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > >> > >> $ cd libselinux > >> > >> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... > >> > >> make[1]: Entering directory > >> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > >> > >> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > >> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing > >> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align > >> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes > >> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations > >> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls > >> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > >> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > >> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > >> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > >> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > >> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > >> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral > >> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > >> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > >> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > >> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls > >> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand > >> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc > >> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn > >> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init > >> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const > >> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > >> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > >> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > >> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > >> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > >> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur when > >> changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] > >> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > > This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least > > the warning message and source code location are super confusing, > > which is a bug on its own... > > It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in libselinux uses > level 5 which was added by commit > 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) > > The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in > libselinux/src/booleans.c: > > 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > 85: free(n[i]); > > > It could be suppressed by something like this: > > --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c > +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent > *d) > int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { > char path[PATH_MAX]; > - int i, rc; > + int i, j, rc; > struct dirent **namelist; > char **n; > > @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > free(namelist); > return rc; > bad_freen: > - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > - free(n[i]); > + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > + free(n[j]); > free(n); > bad: > goto out; > > > William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that @sds anything? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 17:52 ` Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-07 18:17 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-07 18:18 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Stephen Smalley @ 2019-02-07 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roberts, William C, Petr Lautrbach, selinux; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM >> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C >> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues >> >> >> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: >>>> >>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) >>>> >> ... >>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: >>>> >>>> $ cd libselinux >>>> >>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... >>>> >>>> make[1]: Entering directory >>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' >>>> >>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self >>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing >>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align >>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes >>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations >>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls >>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var >>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes >>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero >>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args >>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow >>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers >>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral >>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 >>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions >>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option >>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls >>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand >>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init >>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const >>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE >>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE >>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c >>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: >>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur when >>>> changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] >>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>> >>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least >>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, >>> which is a bug on its own... >> >> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in libselinux uses >> level 5 which was added by commit >> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) >> >> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in >> libselinux/src/booleans.c: >> >> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >> 85: free(n[i]); >> >> >> It could be suppressed by something like this: >> >> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c >> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent >> *d) >> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { >> char path[PATH_MAX]; >> - int i, rc; >> + int i, j, rc; >> struct dirent **namelist; >> char **n; >> >> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) >> free(namelist); >> return rc; >> bad_freen: >> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >> - free(n[i]); >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) >> + free(n[j]); >> free(n); >> bad: >> goto out; >> >> >> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? > > The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. Looks like > GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In the case of gcc > Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of action to work around it, but > Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that @sds anything? AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly zealous compilers... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 18:17 ` Stephen Smalley @ 2019-02-07 18:18 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-07 18:20 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-07 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Smalley, Petr Lautrbach, selinux; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach > <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM > >> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org > >> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C > >> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > >> > >> > >> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > >>>> > >>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > >>>> > >> ... > >>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > >>>> > >>>> $ cd libselinux > >>>> > >>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... > >>>> > >>>> make[1]: Entering directory > >>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > >>>> > >>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > >>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing > >>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align > >>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes > >>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations > >>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls > >>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > >>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > >>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > >>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > >>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > >>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > >>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral > >>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > >>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > >>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > >>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls > >>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand > >>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init > >>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const > >>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > >>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > >>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > >>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > >>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > >>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > >>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] > >>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > >>> > >>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least > >>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, > >>> which is a bug on its own... > >> > >> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in > >> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit > >> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) > >> > >> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in > >> libselinux/src/booleans.c: > >> > >> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >> 85: free(n[i]); > >> > >> > >> It could be suppressed by something like this: > >> > >> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent > >> *d) > >> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { > >> char path[PATH_MAX]; > >> - int i, rc; > >> + int i, j, rc; > >> struct dirent **namelist; > >> char **n; > >> > >> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int > *len) > >> free(namelist); > >> return rc; > >> bad_freen: > >> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >> - free(n[i]); > >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > >> + free(n[j]); > >> free(n); > >> bad: > >> goto out; > >> > >> > >> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? > > > > The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. > > Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In > > the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of > > action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that > @sds anything? > > AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly > zealous compilers... > I guess whomever is building can override CFLAGS and drop the value down. We should Probably file a bug with gcc? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 18:18 ` Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-07 18:20 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-07 18:22 ` Roberts, William C 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Stephen Smalley @ 2019-02-07 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roberts, William C, Petr Lautrbach, selinux; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek On 2/7/19 1:18 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM >> To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach >> <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues >> >> On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM >>>> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C >>>> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> >>>> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues >>>> >>>> >>>> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: >>>>>> >>>>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) >>>>>> >>>> ... >>>>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: >>>>>> >>>>>> $ cd libselinux >>>>>> >>>>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... >>>>>> >>>>>> make[1]: Entering directory >>>>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' >>>>>> >>>>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self >>>>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing >>>>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align >>>>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes >>>>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations >>>>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls >>>>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var >>>>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes >>>>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero >>>>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args >>>>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow >>>>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers >>>>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral >>>>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 >>>>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions >>>>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option >>>>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls >>>>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand >>>>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc >>>>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn >>>>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init >>>>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const >>>>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE >>>>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >>>>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE >>>>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c >>>>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: >>>>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur >>>>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] >>>>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) >>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>>>> >>>>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least >>>>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, >>>>> which is a bug on its own... >>>> >>>> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in >>>> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit >>>> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) >>>> >>>> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in >>>> libselinux/src/booleans.c: >>>> >>>> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >>>> 85: free(n[i]); >>>> >>>> >>>> It could be suppressed by something like this: >>>> >>>> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c >>>> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c >>>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent >>>> *d) >>>> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { >>>> char path[PATH_MAX]; >>>> - int i, rc; >>>> + int i, j, rc; >>>> struct dirent **namelist; >>>> char **n; >>>> >>>> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int >> *len) >>>> free(namelist); >>>> return rc; >>>> bad_freen: >>>> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >>>> - free(n[i]); >>>> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) >>>> + free(n[j]); >>>> free(n); >>>> bad: >>>> goto out; >>>> >>>> >>>> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? >>> >>> The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. >>> Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In >>> the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of >>> action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that >> @sds anything? >> >> AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly >> zealous compilers... >> > I guess whomever is building can override CFLAGS and drop the value down. We should > Probably file a bug with gcc? Yes, that would be helpful if someone could do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 18:20 ` Stephen Smalley @ 2019-02-07 18:22 ` Roberts, William C 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-07 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Smalley, Petr Lautrbach, selinux; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:21 AM > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach > <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > On 2/7/19 1:18 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM > >> To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach > >> <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org > >> Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > >> > >> On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM > >>>> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org > >>>> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C > >>>> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek > >>>> <omosnace@redhat.com> > >>>> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach > >>>>> <plautrba@redhat.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > >>>>>> > >>>> ... > >>>>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> $ cd libselinux > >>>>>> > >>>>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> make[1]: Entering directory > >>>>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > >>>>>> > >>>>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > >>>>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas > >>>>>> -Wstrict-aliasing -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast > >>>>>> -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return > >>>>>> -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes > >>>>>> -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn > >>>>>> -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs > >>>>>> -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > >>>>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > >>>>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > >>>>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > >>>>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > >>>>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > >>>>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral > >>>>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > >>>>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > >>>>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > >>>>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return > >>>>>> -Wno-redundant-decls -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op > >>>>>> -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp > >>>>>> -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc -Wsuggest-attribute=const > >>>>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn -Wsuggest-attribute=pure > >>>>>> -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure > >>>>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=const -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > >>>>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > >>>>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > >>>>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > >>>>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > >>>>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > >>>>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict- > overflow] > >>>>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > >>>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > >>>>> > >>>>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very > >>>>> least the warning message and source code location are super > >>>>> confusing, which is a bug on its own... > >>>> > >>>> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in > >>>> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit > >>>> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) > >>>> > >>>> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in > >>>> libselinux/src/booleans.c: > >>>> > >>>> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >>>> 85: free(n[i]); > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It could be suppressed by something like this: > >>>> > >>>> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >>>> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >>>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent > >>>> *d) > >>>> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { > >>>> char path[PATH_MAX]; > >>>> - int i, rc; > >>>> + int i, j, rc; > >>>> struct dirent **namelist; > >>>> char **n; > >>>> > >>>> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int > >> *len) > >>>> free(namelist); > >>>> return rc; > >>>> bad_freen: > >>>> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >>>> - free(n[i]); > >>>> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > >>>> + free(n[j]); > >>>> free(n); > >>>> bad: > >>>> goto out; > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? > >>> > >>> The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. > >>> Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In > >>> the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of > >>> action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel > >>> about that > >> @sds anything? > >> > >> AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to > >> appease overly zealous compilers... > >> > > I guess whomever is building can override CFLAGS and drop the value > > down. We should Probably file a bug with gcc? > > Yes, that would be helpful if someone could do that. > On it ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* RE: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-07 18:17 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-07 18:18 ` Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-08 20:10 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-12 16:37 ` Petr Lautrbach 1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-08 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Smalley, Petr Lautrbach, selinux; +Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach > <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM > >> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org > >> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C > >> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > >> > >> > >> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > >>>> > >>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > >>>> > >> ... > >>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > >>>> > >>>> $ cd libselinux > >>>> > >>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... > >>>> > >>>> make[1]: Entering directory > >>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > >>>> > >>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > >>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing > >>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align > >>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes > >>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations > >>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls > >>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > >>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > >>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > >>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > >>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > >>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > >>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral > >>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > >>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > >>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > >>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls > >>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand > >>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init > >>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const > >>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > >>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > >>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > >>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > >>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > >>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > >>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] > >>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > >>> > >>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least > >>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, > >>> which is a bug on its own... > >> > >> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in > >> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit > >> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) > >> > >> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in > >> libselinux/src/booleans.c: > >> > >> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >> 85: free(n[i]); > >> > >> > >> It could be suppressed by something like this: > >> > >> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c > >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent > >> *d) > >> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { > >> char path[PATH_MAX]; > >> - int i, rc; > >> + int i, j, rc; > >> struct dirent **namelist; > >> char **n; > >> > >> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int > *len) > >> free(namelist); > >> return rc; > >> bad_freen: > >> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > >> - free(n[i]); > >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > >> + free(n[j]); > >> free(n); > >> bad: > >> goto out; > >> > >> > >> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? > > > > The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. > > Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In > > the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of > > action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that > @sds anything? > > AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly > zealous compilers... > So I looked at filing a bug with GCC, and one thing that helps it get looked at is sample code to trigger the problem. I'm not even seeing a GCC 9 release, so I am assuming it's in a dev mode? Since you have it running could you see if you can re-produce the error in a snippet and file the bug? I would also diff the object file with -frwapv to see if it is producing different code for that loop. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C @ 2019-02-08 20:10 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-12 16:37 ` Petr Lautrbach 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2019-02-08 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roberts, William C; +Cc: Stephen Smalley, Petr Lautrbach, selinux On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:40 PM Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] > > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM > > To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach > > <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > > Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > > > On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM > > >> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org > > >> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C > > >> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> > > >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues > > >> > > >> > > >> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: > > >> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > > >>>> > > >>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > > >>>> > > >> ... > > >>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > > >>>> > > >>>> $ cd libselinux > > >>>> > > >>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... > > >>>> > > >>>> make[1]: Entering directory > > >>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > > >>>> > > >>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > > >>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing > > >>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align > > >>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes > > >>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations > > >>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls > > >>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > > >>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > > >>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > > >>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > > >>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > > >>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > > >>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral > > >>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > > >>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > > >>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > > >>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls > > >>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand > > >>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc > > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn > > >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init > > >>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const > > >>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > > >>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > > >>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > > >>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > > >>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > > >>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > > >>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] > > >>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > > >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > >>> > > >>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least > > >>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, > > >>> which is a bug on its own... > > >> > > >> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in > > >> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit > > >> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) > > >> > > >> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in > > >> libselinux/src/booleans.c: > > >> > > >> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > > >> 85: free(n[i]); > > >> > > >> > > >> It could be suppressed by something like this: > > >> > > >> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c > > >> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c > > >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent > > >> *d) > > >> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { > > >> char path[PATH_MAX]; > > >> - int i, rc; > > >> + int i, j, rc; > > >> struct dirent **namelist; > > >> char **n; > > >> > > >> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int > > *len) > > >> free(namelist); > > >> return rc; > > >> bad_freen: > > >> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) > > >> - free(n[i]); > > >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > > >> + free(n[j]); > > >> free(n); > > >> bad: > > >> goto out; > > >> > > >> > > >> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? > > > > > > The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. > > > Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In > > > the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of > > > action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that > > @sds anything? > > > > AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly > > zealous compilers... > > > > So I looked at filing a bug with GCC, and one thing that helps it get looked at is sample code > to trigger the problem. I'm not even seeing a GCC 9 release, so I am assuming it's in a dev > mode? > > Since you have it running could you see if you can re-produce the error in a snippet and file the bug? FWIW, I extracted the relevant part of the code and I managed to reproduce the warning with this self-contained snippet in Compiler Explorer: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/LlVva9 > > I would also diff the object file with -frwapv to see if it is producing different code for that loop. > > Bill -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-08 20:10 ` Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2019-02-12 16:37 ` Petr Lautrbach 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-12 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roberts, William C; +Cc: Stephen Smalley, selinux, Ondrej Mosnacek "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds@tycho.nsa.gov] >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:17 AM >> To: Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Petr Lautrbach >> <plautrba@redhat.com>; selinux@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues >> >> On 2/7/19 12:52 PM, Roberts, William C wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Petr Lautrbach [mailto:plautrba@redhat.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:40 AM >> >> To: selinux@vger.kernel.org >> >> Cc: Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com>; Roberts, William C >> >> <william.c.roberts@intel.com>; Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> >> >> Subject: Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues >> >> >> >> >> >> Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: >> >>>> >> >>>> gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) >> >>>> >> >> ... >> >>>> When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: >> >>>> >> >>>> $ cd libselinux >> >>>> >> >>>> $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap ... >> >>>> >> >>>> make[1]: Entering directory >> >>>> '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' >> >>>> >> >>>> cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self >> >>>> -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing >> >>>> -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align >> >>>> -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return -Wstrict-prototypes >> >>>> -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations >> >>>> -Wmissing-noreturn -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls >> >>>> -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var >> >>>> -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes >> >>>> -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero >> >>>> -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args >> >>>> -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow >> >>>> -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers >> >>>> -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral >> >>>> -Wframe-larger-than=32768 >> >>>> -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions >> >>>> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option >> >>>> -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return -Wno-redundant-decls >> >>>> -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand >> >>>> -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc >> >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=const -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn >> >>>> -Wsuggest-attribute=pure -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init >> >>>> -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure -Wno-suggest-attribute=const >> >>>> -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE >> >>>> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >> >>>> -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE >> >>>> -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c >> >>>> booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: >> >>>> booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur >> >>>> when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow] >> >>>> 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) >> >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >> >>> >> >>> This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least >> >>> the warning message and source code location are super confusing, >> >>> which is a bug on its own... >> >> >> >> It's detected only with -Wstrict-overflow=3 and higher. Makefile in >> >> libselinux uses level 5 which was added by commit >> >> 9fe430345 ("Makefile: add -Wstrict-overflow=5 to CFLAGS) >> >> >> >> The problem code is on lines 84 and 85 in >> >> libselinux/src/booleans.c: >> >> >> >> 84: for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >> >> 85: free(n[i]); >> >> >> >> >> >> It could be suppressed by something like this: >> >> >> >> --- a/libselinux/src/booleans.c >> >> +++ b/libselinux/src/booleans.c >> >> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static int filename_select(const struct dirent >> >> *d) >> >> int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) { >> >> char path[PATH_MAX]; >> >> - int i, rc; >> >> + int i, j, rc; >> >> struct dirent **namelist; >> >> char **n; >> >> >> >> @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int >> *len) >> >> free(namelist); >> >> return rc; >> >> bad_freen: >> >> - for (--i; i >= 0; --i) >> >> - free(n[i]); >> >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) >> >> + free(n[j]); >> >> free(n); >> >> bad: >> >> goto out; >> >> >> >> >> >> William, what would you consider to be the right fix in this case? >> > >> > The previous code looks correct IMO, I can't see an actual problem. >> > Looks like GCC complaining incorrectly or were missing something. In >> > the case of gcc Incorrectly complaining I usually take a course of >> > action to work around it, but Im not sure how other maintainers feel about that >> @sds anything? >> >> AFAICS, the code is correct as is. Not a fan of rewriting code to appease overly >> zealous compilers... >> > > So I looked at filing a bug with GCC, and one thing that helps it get looked at is sample code > to trigger the problem. I'm not even seeing a GCC 9 release, so I am assuming it's in a dev > mode? > > Since you have it running could you see if you can re-produce the error in a snippet and file the bug? > > I would also diff the object file with -frwapv to see if it is producing different code for that loop. > > Bill Fedora gcc is built with --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla therefore I filed bug there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676607 Petr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 9.0.0 build issues 2019-02-01 20:24 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-07 12:40 ` Petr Lautrbach @ 2019-02-07 15:32 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2019-02-07 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Petr Lautrbach; +Cc: selinux On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:24 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:36 PM Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@redhat.com> wrote: > > gcc-9.0.0-0.3.fc30.x86_64 from Fedora Rawhide: > > > > gcc version 9.0.0 20190119 (Red Hat 9.0.0-0.3) (GCC) > > > > $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap > > ... > > > > make[2]: Entering directory > > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src' > > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > > -I../cil/include -fPIC -c -o genbools.o genbools.c > > In function ‘strtrim’, > > inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2: > > genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > > 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > > 24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > This is a typical strncpy() abuse. See 'man strncpy' -> /NOTES for how > to handle the corner case correctly (same for similar issues below). Actually, upon closer look it looks like there is no abuse and the warning simply warns that only a part of the string might be copied into the destination. I suppose we don't care about that possibility here, so the best way to resolve the warning might be to just disable the warning for this part of the code. > > > ... > > > > make[2]: Entering directory > > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libsepol/src' > > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I. -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > > -I../cil/include -fPIC -DSHARED -c -o genbools.lo genbools.c > > In function ‘strtrim’, > > inlined from ‘process_boolean.constprop’ at genbools.c:52:2: > > genbools.c:24:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > > 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > > 24 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > ... > > > > make[2]: Entering directory > > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > > cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra -Wmissing-format-attribute > > -Wmissing-noreturn -Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes > > -Wundef -Wunused -Wwrite-strings -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > > -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > > In function ‘strtrim’, > > inlined from ‘process_boolean’ at booleans.c:362:2: > > booleans.c:335:2: error: ‘strncpy’ output may be truncated copying > > between 8188 and 8191 bytes from a string of length 8191 > > [-Werror=stringop-truncation] > > 335 | strncpy(dest, ptr, size); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > ... > > > > > > > > When libselinux is built separately, other CFLAGS is used: > > > > $ cd libselinux > > > > $ make DESTDIR=~/obj install install-pywrap > > ... > > > > make[1]: Entering directory > > '/home/build/SELinuxProject-selinux/libselinux/src' > > > > cc -O -Wall -W -Wundef -Wformat-y2k -Wformat-security -Winit-self > > -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas > > -Wstrict-aliasing -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast > > -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return > > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-prototypes > > -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-noreturn > > -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs > > -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wvolatile-register-var > > -Wdisabled-optimization -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wattributes > > -Wmultichar -Wdeprecated-declarations -Wdiv-by-zero > > -Wdouble-promotion -Wendif-labels -Wextra -Wformat-extra-args > > -Wformat-zero-length -Wformat=2 -Wmultichar -Woverflow > > -Wpointer-to-int-cast -Wpragmas -Wno-missing-field-initializers > > -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-format-nonliteral -Wframe-larger-than=32768 > > -fstack-protector-all --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -fexceptions > > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fdiagnostics-show-option > > -funit-at-a-time -Werror -Wno-aggregate-return > > -Wno-redundant-decls -fipa-pure-const -Wlogical-op > > -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wcpp > > -Wformat-contains-nul -Wnormalized=nfc -Wsuggest-attribute=const > > -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn -Wsuggest-attribute=pure > > -Wtrampolines -Wjump-misses-init -Wno-suggest-attribute=pure > > -Wno-suggest-attribute=const -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > > -Wstrict-overflow=5 -I../include -D_GNU_SOURCE > > -DNO_ANDROID_BACKEND -c -o booleans.o booleans.c > > booleans.c: In function ‘security_get_boolean_names’: > > booleans.c:39:5: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur > > when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 > > [-Werror=strict-overflow] > > 39 | int security_get_boolean_names(char ***names, int *len) > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > This one is really weird... Perhaps a bug in GCC? At the very least > the warning message and source code location are super confusing, > which is a bug on its own... > > -- > Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> > Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies > Red Hat, Inc. -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-12 16:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-02-01 19:34 gcc 9.0.0 build issues Petr Lautrbach 2019-02-01 20:24 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-07 12:40 ` Petr Lautrbach 2019-02-07 17:52 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-07 18:17 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-07 18:18 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-07 18:20 ` Stephen Smalley 2019-02-07 18:22 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-08 19:40 ` Roberts, William C 2019-02-08 20:10 ` Ondrej Mosnacek 2019-02-12 16:37 ` Petr Lautrbach 2019-02-07 15:32 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
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).