* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size [not found] <20250811-iot_iter_folio-v1-1-d9c223adf93c@codewreck.org> @ 2025-08-11 18:55 ` kernel test robot 2025-08-13 5:16 ` Nathan Chancellor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: kernel test robot @ 2025-08-11 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton Cc: llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, Dominique Martinet, stable Hi Dominique, kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: [auto build test WARNING on 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585] url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Dominique-Martinet-via-B4-Relay/iov_iter-iterate_folioq-fix-handling-of-offset-folio-size/20250811-154319 base: 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585 patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250811-iot_iter_folio-v1-1-d9c223adf93c%40codewreck.org patch subject: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size config: i386-buildonly-randconfig-002-20250811 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250812/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/config) compiler: clang version 20.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 87f0227cb60147a26a1eeb4fb06e3b505e9c7261) reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250812/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/ All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): In file included from lib/iov_iter.c:14: >> include/linux/iov_iter.h:171:7: warning: variable 'remain' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized] 171 | if (skip >= fsize) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/iov_iter.h:190:7: note: uninitialized use occurs here 190 | if (remain) | ^~~~~~ include/linux/iov_iter.h:171:3: note: remove the 'if' if its condition is always false 171 | if (skip >= fsize) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 172 | goto next; | ~~~~~~~~~ include/linux/iov_iter.h:163:22: note: initialize the variable 'remain' to silence this warning 163 | size_t part, remain, consumed; | ^ | = 0 1 warning generated. vim +171 include/linux/iov_iter.h 143 144 /* 145 * Handle ITER_FOLIOQ. 146 */ 147 static __always_inline 148 size_t iterate_folioq(struct iov_iter *iter, size_t len, void *priv, void *priv2, 149 iov_step_f step) 150 { 151 const struct folio_queue *folioq = iter->folioq; 152 unsigned int slot = iter->folioq_slot; 153 size_t progress = 0, skip = iter->iov_offset; 154 155 if (slot == folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) { 156 /* The iterator may have been extended. */ 157 folioq = folioq->next; 158 slot = 0; 159 } 160 161 do { 162 struct folio *folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot); 163 size_t part, remain, consumed; 164 size_t fsize; 165 void *base; 166 167 if (!folio) 168 break; 169 170 fsize = folioq_folio_size(folioq, slot); > 171 if (skip >= fsize) 172 goto next; 173 base = kmap_local_folio(folio, skip); 174 part = umin(len, PAGE_SIZE - skip % PAGE_SIZE); 175 remain = step(base, progress, part, priv, priv2); 176 kunmap_local(base); 177 consumed = part - remain; 178 len -= consumed; 179 progress += consumed; 180 skip += consumed; 181 if (skip >= fsize) { 182 next: 183 skip = 0; 184 slot++; 185 if (slot == folioq_nr_slots(folioq) && folioq->next) { 186 folioq = folioq->next; 187 slot = 0; 188 } 189 } 190 if (remain) 191 break; 192 } while (len); 193 194 iter->folioq_slot = slot; 195 iter->folioq = folioq; 196 iter->iov_offset = skip; 197 iter->count -= progress; 198 return progress; 199 } 200 -- 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-11 18:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size kernel test robot @ 2025-08-13 5:16 ` Nathan Chancellor 2025-08-13 5:34 ` Dominique Martinet 2025-08-13 13:49 ` David Howells 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Nathan Chancellor @ 2025-08-13 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernel test robot Cc: Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, Dominique Martinet, stable On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 02:55:55AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > Hi Dominique, > > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings: > > [auto build test WARNING on 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585] > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Dominique-Martinet-via-B4-Relay/iov_iter-iterate_folioq-fix-handling-of-offset-folio-size/20250811-154319 > base: 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585 > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250811-iot_iter_folio-v1-1-d9c223adf93c%40codewreck.org > patch subject: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size > config: i386-buildonly-randconfig-002-20250811 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250812/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/config) > compiler: clang version 20.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 87f0227cb60147a26a1eeb4fb06e3b505e9c7261) > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250812/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202508120250.Eooq2ydr-lkp@intel.com/ > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > > In file included from lib/iov_iter.c:14: > >> include/linux/iov_iter.h:171:7: warning: variable 'remain' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is true [-Wsometimes-uninitialized] > 171 | if (skip >= fsize) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > include/linux/iov_iter.h:190:7: note: uninitialized use occurs here > 190 | if (remain) > | ^~~~~~ > include/linux/iov_iter.h:171:3: note: remove the 'if' if its condition is always false > 171 | if (skip >= fsize) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 172 | goto next; > | ~~~~~~~~~ > include/linux/iov_iter.h:163:22: note: initialize the variable 'remain' to silence this warning > 163 | size_t part, remain, consumed; > | ^ > | = 0 > 1 warning generated. I see this in -next now, should remain be zero initialized or is there some other fix that is needed? > vim +171 include/linux/iov_iter.h > > 143 > 144 /* > 145 * Handle ITER_FOLIOQ. > 146 */ > 147 static __always_inline > 148 size_t iterate_folioq(struct iov_iter *iter, size_t len, void *priv, void *priv2, > 149 iov_step_f step) > 150 { > 151 const struct folio_queue *folioq = iter->folioq; > 152 unsigned int slot = iter->folioq_slot; > 153 size_t progress = 0, skip = iter->iov_offset; > 154 > 155 if (slot == folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) { > 156 /* The iterator may have been extended. */ > 157 folioq = folioq->next; > 158 slot = 0; > 159 } > 160 > 161 do { > 162 struct folio *folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot); > 163 size_t part, remain, consumed; > 164 size_t fsize; > 165 void *base; > 166 > 167 if (!folio) > 168 break; > 169 > 170 fsize = folioq_folio_size(folioq, slot); > > 171 if (skip >= fsize) > 172 goto next; > 173 base = kmap_local_folio(folio, skip); > 174 part = umin(len, PAGE_SIZE - skip % PAGE_SIZE); > 175 remain = step(base, progress, part, priv, priv2); > 176 kunmap_local(base); > 177 consumed = part - remain; > 178 len -= consumed; > 179 progress += consumed; > 180 skip += consumed; > 181 if (skip >= fsize) { > 182 next: > 183 skip = 0; > 184 slot++; > 185 if (slot == folioq_nr_slots(folioq) && folioq->next) { > 186 folioq = folioq->next; > 187 slot = 0; > 188 } > 189 } > 190 if (remain) > 191 break; > 192 } while (len); > 193 > 194 iter->folioq_slot = slot; > 195 iter->folioq = folioq; > 196 iter->iov_offset = skip; > 197 iter->count -= progress; > 198 return progress; > 199 } > 200 > > -- > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service > https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 5:16 ` Nathan Chancellor @ 2025-08-13 5:34 ` Dominique Martinet 2025-08-13 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko 2025-08-13 13:49 ` David Howells 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Chancellor Cc: kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable Nathan Chancellor wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:16:33PM -0700: > > 1 warning generated. > > I see this in -next now, should remain be zero initialized or is there > some other fix that is needed? A zero-initialization is fine, I sent a v2 with zero-initialization fixed yesterday: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250812-iot_iter_folio-v2-1-f99423309478@codewreck.org (and I'll send a v3 with the goto replaced with a bigger if later today as per David's request) I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 5:34 ` Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko 2025-08-13 13:45 ` Dominique Martinet 2025-08-13 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-08-13 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominique Martinet Cc: Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 02:34:25PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Nathan Chancellor wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:16:33PM -0700: > > > 1 warning generated. > > > > I see this in -next now, should remain be zero initialized or is there > > some other fix that is needed? > > A zero-initialization is fine, I sent a v2 with zero-initialization > fixed yesterday: > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250812-iot_iter_folio-v2-1-f99423309478@codewreck.org > > (and I'll send a v3 with the goto replaced with a bigger if later today > as per David's request) > > I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1` and suggest all developers should follow). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-08-13 13:45 ` Dominique Martinet 2025-08-13 13:52 ` Andy Shevchenko 2025-08-13 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable Andy Shevchenko wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 03:39:09PM +0200: > > I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? > > I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1` > and suggest all developers should follow). I actually test with W=1 too, but somehow this warning doesn't show up in my build, I'm not quite sure why :/ (even if I try clang like the test robot... But there's plenty of other warnings all around everywhere else, so I agree this is all way too manual) Anyway, sorry about it... -- Dominique ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 13:45 ` Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 13:52 ` Andy Shevchenko 2025-08-14 1:14 ` Dominique Martinet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-08-13 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominique Martinet Cc: Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:45:33PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Andy Shevchenko wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 03:39:09PM +0200: > > > I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? > > > > I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1` > > and suggest all developers should follow). > > I actually test with W=1 too, but somehow this warning doesn't show up > in my build, I'm not quite sure why :/ > (even if I try clang like the test robot... But there's plenty of > other warnings all around everywhere else, so I agree this is all way > too manual) Depends on your config, last few releases I was specifically targetting x86 defconfigs (32- and 64-bit) to be build with `make W=1`. There are a couple of changes that are still pending, but otherwise it builds with GCC and clang. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 13:52 ` Andy Shevchenko @ 2025-08-14 1:14 ` Dominique Martinet 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-14 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko, Paul E. McKenney Cc: Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable Andy Shevchenko wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 04:52:39PM +0300: > > I actually test with W=1 too, but somehow this warning doesn't show up > > in my build, I'm not quite sure why :/ > > (even if I try clang like the test robot... But there's plenty of > > other warnings all around everywhere else, so I agree this is all way > > too manual) > > Depends on your config, last few releases I was specifically targetting x86 > defconfigs (32- and 64-bit) to be build with `make W=1`. There are a couple of > changes that are still pending, but otherwise it builds with GCC and clang. I meant it the other way around: the warning isn't showing up on master + these patches for my config. But now I double-checked, 'CC=clang make W=1' doesn't actually use clang, I should have tried 'make CC=clang W=1'... And, yeah, it just doesn't show up with gcc so I'll know it's better to check both compilers... Paul E. McKenney wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 04:04:19PM -0700: > > I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1` > > and suggest all developers should follow). > > This build failure is showing up in my testing as well. > > In the service of preventing bisection issues, would it be possible to > fold the fix into the original patch? Andrew just picked v3 up, so there won't be any such problem, and -next will stop failing after today's update -- Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko 2025-08-13 13:45 ` Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2025-08-13 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Dominique Martinet, Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Christian Brauner, David Howells, Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 03:39:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 02:34:25PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > > Nathan Chancellor wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:16:33PM -0700: > > > > 1 warning generated. > > > > > > I see this in -next now, should remain be zero initialized or is there > > > some other fix that is needed? > > > > A zero-initialization is fine, I sent a v2 with zero-initialization > > fixed yesterday: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250812-iot_iter_folio-v2-1-f99423309478@codewreck.org > > > > (and I'll send a v3 with the goto replaced with a bigger if later today > > as per David's request) > > > > I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? > > I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1` > and suggest all developers should follow). This build failure is showing up in my testing as well. In the service of preventing bisection issues, would it be possible to fold the fix into the original patch? Thanx, Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size 2025-08-13 5:16 ` Nathan Chancellor 2025-08-13 5:34 ` Dominique Martinet @ 2025-08-13 13:49 ` David Howells 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: David Howells @ 2025-08-13 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dominique Martinet, Christian Brauner Cc: dhowells, Nathan Chancellor, kernel test robot, Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle), Alexander Viro, Andrew Morton, llvm, oe-kbuild-all, Linux Memory Management List, Maximilian Bosch, Ryan Lahfa, Christian Theune, Arnout Engelen, linux-kernel, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, stable Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> wrote: > I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually? These might be more a Christian/VFS thing. David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-08-14 1:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20250811-iot_iter_folio-v1-1-d9c223adf93c@codewreck.org>
2025-08-11 18:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >= folio size kernel test robot
2025-08-13 5:16 ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-08-13 5:34 ` Dominique Martinet
2025-08-13 13:39 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-08-13 13:45 ` Dominique Martinet
2025-08-13 13:52 ` Andy Shevchenko
2025-08-14 1:14 ` Dominique Martinet
2025-08-13 23:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-08-13 13:49 ` David Howells
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox