On 07.11.2019 19:32, Valery Ushakov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 18:08:40 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> On 07.11.2019 16:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> On 07.11.2019 16:26, Martin Husemann wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:53:08PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>>>> On 07.11.2019 14:25, Valery Ushakov wrote: >>>>>> If the sanitizer does complain about other uses, there is little point >>>>>> in fixing one instance and not the others. >>>>> >>>>> We already agreed with Christos that this is appeasing of GCC. If you >>>>> want to scan the whole kernel (or whole C) file for more occurrences of >>>>> violations - please go for it. >>>> >>>> No. The commit needs to be reverted, and then >>>> >>>> a) either the root cause for the unaligned address be fixed or >>>> b) some other means be found to make the sanitizer shut up >>>> >>>> As uwe said: papering over a tiny detail that *never* hits in the real >>>> world but potentialy hiding a real issue is not the way to go. >>>> >>> >>> I don't have a readily available reproducer locally but it was breaking >>> syzbot from booting after the switch to gcc8. I will fix it differently >>> aligning the whole struct (so the same approach as we use in userland) >>> and backout this change. >>> >> >> Please review: >> >> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00194-disklabel-alignment.txt >> >> This patch works for me. > > What happens if you change check_label_magic() to use direct member > accesses (as the code did before xtos change it) instead of memcmp? > Does that shup up the sanitizer? I assume it should as it doesn't > complain about other member accesses. I'd strongly prefer this change > for now. > > -uwe > I have got no opinion on this. It will work now. If you prefer it, please go for it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature