[Nouveau] Disabling -Warray-bounds for gcc-13 too

[Lyude Paul]

On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 00:50 +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:46 AM Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hey Linus, Kees. Responses below
> > 
> > On Sun, 2023-04-23 at 13:23 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On April 23, 2023 10:36:24 AM PDT, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > Kees,
> > > >  I made the mistake of upgrading my M2 Macbook Air to Fedora-38, and
> > > > in the process I got gcc-13 which is not WERROR-clean because we only
> > > > limited the 'array-bounds' warning to gcc-11 and gcc-12. But gcc-13
> > > > has all the same issues.
> > > > 
> > > > And I want to be able to do my arm64 builds with WERROR on still...
> > > > 
> > > > I guess it never made much sense to hope it was going to go away
> > > > without having a confirmation, so I just changed it to be gcc-11+.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, that's fine. GCC 13 released without having a fix for at least one (hopefully last) known array-bounds vs jump threading bug:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109071
> > > 
> > > > And one of them is from you.
> > > > 
> > > > In particular, commit 4076ea2419cf ("drm/nouveau/disp: Fix
> > > > nvif_outp_acquire_dp() argument size") cannot possibly be right, It
> > > > changes
> > > > 
> > > > nvif_outp_acquire_dp(struct nvif_outp *outp, u8 dpcd[16],
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > 
> > > > nvif_outp_acquire_dp(struct nvif_outp *outp, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE],
> > > > 
> > > > and then does
> > > > 
> > > >        memcpy(args.dp.dpcd, dpcd, sizeof(args.dp.dpcd));
> > > > 
> > > > where that 'args.dp.dpcd' is a 16-byte array, and DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE is 15.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it was an incomplete fix. I sent the other half here, but it fell through the cracks:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230204184307.never.825-kees@kernel.org/
> > 
> > Thanks for bringing this to our attention, yeah this definitely just looks
> > like it got missed somewhere down the line. It looks like Karol responded
> > already so I assume the patch is in the pipeline now, but let me know if
> > there's anything else you need.
> > 
> 
> uhm, I didn't push anything, but I can push it through drm-misct asap,
> just wanted to ask if somebody wants to pick a quicker route. But I
> guess not?

Ah whoops, I misunderstood! Yeah I would say we should just go ahead and push
it since I don't see any indication here that anyone else has.

> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > I think it's all entirely harmless from a code generation standpoint,
> > > > because the 15-byte field will be padded out to 16 bytes in the
> > > > structure that contains it, but it's most definitely buggy.
> > > 
> > > Right; between this, that GCC 13 wasn't released yet, and I had no feedback from NV folks, I didn't chase down landing that fix.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So that warning does find real cases of wrong code. But when those
> > > > real cases are hidden by hundreds of lines of unfixable false
> > > > positives, we don't have much choice.
> > > 
> > > Yup, totally agreed. The false positives I've looked at all seem to be similar to the outstanding jump threading bug, so I'm hoping once that gets fixed we'll finally have a good signal with that warning enabled. :)
> > > 
> > > -Kees
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >  Lyude Paul (she/her)
> >  Software Engineer at Red Hat
> > 
> 

-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat