user/sven/linux.git/kernel/gcov, branch v5.7.4

kernel/gcov/fs.c: gcov_seq_next() should increase position index

2020-04-10T22:36:22Z

If seq_file .next function does not change position index, read after some lseek can generate unexpected output. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206283 Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Acked-by: Peter Oberparleiter Cc: Al Viro Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Manfred Spraul Cc: NeilBrown Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Waiman Long Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f65c6ee7-bd00-f910-2f8a-37cc67e4ff88@virtuozzo.com Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

kernel/gcov/fs.c: replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

2020-04-07T17:43:44Z

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Cc: Peter Oberparleiter Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224851.GA26467@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcov: gcc_3_4: replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

2020-04-07T17:43:44Z

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Cc: Peter Oberparleiter Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224501.GA14175@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcov: gcc_4_7: replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

2020-04-07T17:43:44Z

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Acked-by: Peter Oberparleiter Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200213152241.GA877@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

Revert "um: Enable CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS"

2020-01-19T21:42:06Z

This reverts commit 786b2384bf1c ("um: Enable CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS"). There are two issues with this commit, uncovered by Anton in tests on some (Debian) systems: 1) I completely forgot to call any constructors if CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS isn't set. Don't recall now if it just wasn't needed on my system, or if I never tested this case. 2) With that fixed, it works - with CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS *unset*. If I set CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS, it fails again, which isn't totally unexpected since whatever wanted to run is likely to have to run before the kernel init etc. that calls the constructors in this case. Basically, some constructors that gcc emits (libc has?) need to run very early during init; the failure mode otherwise was that the ptrace fork test already failed: ---------------------- $ ./linux mem=512M Core dump limits : soft - 0 hard - NONE Checking that ptrace can change system call numbers...check_ptrace : child exited with exitcode 6, while expecting 0; status 0x67f Aborted ---------------------- Thinking more about this, it's clear that we simply cannot support CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS in UML. All the cases we need now (gcov, kasan) involve not use of the __attribute__((constructor)), but instead some constructor code/entry generated by gcc. Therefore, we cannot distinguish between kernel constructors and system constructors. Thus, revert this commit. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org [5.4+] Fixes: 786b2384bf1c ("um: Enable CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS") Reported-by: Anton Ivanov Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg Acked-by: Anton Ivanov Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger

um: Enable CONFIG_CONSTRUCTORS

2019-09-15T19:37:13Z

We do need to call the constructors for *modules*, and at least for KASAN in the future, we must call even the kernel constructors only later when the kernel has been initialized. Instead of relying on libc to call them, emit an empty section for libc and let the kernel's CONSTRUCTORS code do the rest of the job. Tested that it indeed doesn't work in modules, and does work after the fixes in both, with a few functions with __attribute__((constructor)) in both dynamic and static builds. Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger

gcov: no need to check return value of debugfs_create functions

2019-06-03T14:18:12Z

When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever check the return value. The function can work or not, but the code logic should never do something different based on this. Also delete the dentry variable as it is never needed. Acked-by: Peter Oberparleiter Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

treewide: Add SPDX license identifier - Makefile/Kconfig

2019-05-21T08:50:46Z

Add SPDX license identifiers to all Make/Kconfig files which: - Have no license information of any form These files fall under the project license, GPL v2 only. The resulting SPDX license identifier is: GPL-2.0-only Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

gcov: clang support

2019-05-15T02:52:51Z

LLVM uses profiling data that's deliberately similar to GCC, but has a very different way of exporting that data. LLVM calls llvm_gcov_init() once per module, and provides a couple of callbacks that we can use to ask for more data. We care about the "writeout" callback, which in turn calls back into compiler-rt/this module to dump all the gathered coverage data to disk: llvm_gcda_start_file() llvm_gcda_emit_function() llvm_gcda_emit_arcs() llvm_gcda_emit_function() llvm_gcda_emit_arcs() [... repeats for each function ...] llvm_gcda_summary_info() llvm_gcda_end_file() This design is much more stateless and unstructured than gcc's, and is intended to run at process exit. This forces us to keep some local state about which module we're dealing with at the moment. On the other hand, it also means we don't depend as much on how LLVM represents profiling data internally. See LLVM's lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/GCOVProfiling.cpp for more details on how this works, particularly GCOVProfiler::emitProfileArcs(), GCOVProfiler::insertCounterWriteout(), and GCOVProfiler::insertFlush(). [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190417225328.208129-1-trong@android.com Signed-off-by: Greg Hackmann Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers Signed-off-by: Tri Vo Co-developed-by: Nick Desaulniers Co-developed-by: Tri Vo Tested-by: Trilok Soni Tested-by: Prasad Sodagudi Tested-by: Tri Vo Tested-by: Daniel Mentz Tested-by: Petri Gynther Reviewed-by: Peter Oberparleiter Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcov: clang: move common GCC code into gcc_base.c

2019-05-15T02:52:51Z

Patch series "gcov: add Clang support", v4. This patch (of 3): base.c contains a few callbacks specific to GCC's gcov implementation. Move these into their own module in preparation for Clang support. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190318025411.98014-2-trong@android.com Signed-off-by: Greg Hackmann Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers Signed-off-by: Tri Vo Tested-by: Trilok Soni Tested-by: Prasad Sodagudi Tested-by: Tri Vo Reviewed-by: Peter Oberparleiter Cc: Daniel Mentz Cc: Petri Gynther Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds