Commit f0f06b84 authored by Linus Torvalds's avatar Linus Torvalds Committed by Zheng Zengkai
Browse files

sparc: avoid stringop-overread errors

stable inclusion
from stable-5.10.70
commit 5520d27f02a15831e240e14c1f1a19ea6b3f467f
bugzilla: 182949 https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I4I3GQ

Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=5520d27f02a15831e240e14c1f1a19ea6b3f467f

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

[ Upstream commit fc7c028d ]

The sparc mdesc code does pointer games with 'struct mdesc_hdr', but
didn't describe to the compiler how that header is then followed by the
data that the header describes.

As a result, gcc is now unhappy since it does stricter pointer range
tracking, and doesn't understand about how these things work.  This
results in various errors like:

    arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c: In function ‘mdesc_node_by_name’:
    arch/sparc/kernel/mdesc.c:647:22: error: ‘strcmp’ reading 1 or more bytes from a region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
      647 |                 if (!strcmp(names + ep[ret].name_offset, name))
          |                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

which are easily avoided by just describing 'struct mdesc_hdr' better,
and making the node_block() helper function look into that unsized
data[] that follows the header.

This makes the sparc64 build happy again at least for my cross-compiler
version (gcc version 11.2.1).

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi4NW3NC0xWykkw=6LnjQD6D_rtRtxY9g8gQAJXtQMi8A@mail.gmail.com/


Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Acked-by: default avatarWeilong Chen <chenweilong@huawei.com>

Signed-off-by: default avatarChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarZheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@huawei.com>
parent fd7c9c64
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please to comment