drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h | 6 ++++-- drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
On gcc-11 and earlier, the driver sometimes produces a warning
for memset:
In file included from include/linux/string.h:392,
from drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:6:
In function 'fortify_memset_chk',
inlined from '__subn_get_opa_hfi1_cong_log' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:3873:2,
inlined from 'subn_get_opa_sma' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:4114:9:
include/linux/fortify-string.h:480:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror]
__write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This seems to be a false positive, and I found no nice way to rewrite
the code to avoid the warning, but adding a a struct group works.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h | 6 ++++--
drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h
index cb630551cf1a..fca37eb167cc 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/hfi.h
@@ -883,8 +883,10 @@ struct hfi1_pportdata {
* cc_log_lock protects all congestion log related data
*/
spinlock_t cc_log_lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
- u8 threshold_cong_event_map[OPA_MAX_SLS / 8];
- u16 threshold_event_counter;
+ struct_group (zero_event_map,
+ u8 threshold_cong_event_map[OPA_MAX_SLS / 8];
+ u16 threshold_event_counter;
+ );
struct opa_hfi1_cong_log_event_internal cc_events[OPA_CONG_LOG_ELEMS];
int cc_log_idx; /* index for logging events */
int cc_mad_idx; /* index for reporting events */
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
index b39f63ce6dfc..0dea8d01e868 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
@@ -3870,8 +3870,8 @@ static int __subn_get_opa_hfi1_cong_log(struct opa_smp *smp, u32 am,
* Reset threshold_cong_event_map, and threshold_event_counter
* to 0 when log is read.
*/
- memset(ppd->threshold_cong_event_map, 0x0,
- sizeof(ppd->threshold_cong_event_map));
+ memset(&ppd->zero_event_map, 0x0,
+ sizeof(ppd->zero_event_map));
ppd->threshold_event_counter = 0;
spin_unlock_irq(&ppd->cc_log_lock);
--
2.39.5
On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 04:47:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > On gcc-11 and earlier, the driver sometimes produces a warning > for memset: > > In file included from include/linux/string.h:392, > from drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:6: > In function 'fortify_memset_chk', > inlined from '__subn_get_opa_hfi1_cong_log' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:3873:2, > inlined from 'subn_get_opa_sma' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:4114:9: > include/linux/fortify-string.h:480:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror] > __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size); > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > This seems to be a false positive, and I found no nice way to rewrite > the code to avoid the warning, but adding a a struct group works. Er.. so do we really want to fix it or just ignore this on gcc-11? Or is there really a compile bug here and it is mis-generating the code? The unneeded struct group seems ugly to me? Jason
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, at 20:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 04:47:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>
>> On gcc-11 and earlier, the driver sometimes produces a warning
>> for memset:
>>
>> In file included from include/linux/string.h:392,
>> from drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:6:
>> In function 'fortify_memset_chk',
>> inlined from '__subn_get_opa_hfi1_cong_log' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:3873:2,
>> inlined from 'subn_get_opa_sma' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:4114:9:
>> include/linux/fortify-string.h:480:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror]
>> __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> This seems to be a false positive, and I found no nice way to rewrite
>> the code to avoid the warning, but adding a a struct group works.
>
> Er.. so do we really want to fix it or just ignore this on gcc-11? Or
> is there really a compile bug here and it is mis-generating the code?
>
> The unneeded struct group seems ugly to me?
Having a clean build would be nice though. Do you think a patch
that just turns off the warning locally would be better?
Arnd
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:40:38PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, at 20:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 04:47:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > >> > >> On gcc-11 and earlier, the driver sometimes produces a warning > >> for memset: > >> > >> In file included from include/linux/string.h:392, > >> from drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:6: > >> In function 'fortify_memset_chk', > >> inlined from '__subn_get_opa_hfi1_cong_log' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:3873:2, > >> inlined from 'subn_get_opa_sma' at drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c:4114:9: > >> include/linux/fortify-string.h:480:4: error: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror] > >> __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size); > >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> This seems to be a false positive, and I found no nice way to rewrite > >> the code to avoid the warning, but adding a a struct group works. > > > > Er.. so do we really want to fix it or just ignore this on gcc-11? Or > > is there really a compile bug here and it is mis-generating the code? > > > > The unneeded struct group seems ugly to me? > > Having a clean build would be nice though. Do you think a patch > that just turns off the warning locally would be better? I don't think so, as you will need to disable warning for specific compiler, which won't be nice. My preference is to have a fix. Thanks > > Arnd
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.