Peter, Can you pull this patch in? It probably should go to stable as well.
-- Steve On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 20:33:13 +0200 Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:34:33PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [ > > Boris, does this quiet gcc for you? > > I haven't fully tested this yet, as I still don't have a compiler > > that does the warning. > > gcc 6.x should be available in your distro... > > > Gcc's new warnings about __builtin_return_address(n) operations with > > n > 0 is popping up around the kernel. The operation is dangerous, and > > the warning is "good to know". But there's instances that we use > > __builtin_return_address(n) with n > 0 and are aware of the issues, > > and work around them. And its used mostly for tracing and debugging. In > > these cases, the warning becomes a distraction and is not helpful. > > > > To get better lock issue traces, a function like get_lock_parent_ip() > > uses __builtin_return_address() to find the caller of the lock, and > > skip over the internal callers of the lock itself. Currently it is only > > used in the kernel/ directory and only if certain configs are enabled. > > > > Create a new config called CONFIG_USING_GET_LOCK_PARENT_IP that gets > > selected when another config relies on get_lock_parent_ip(), and this > > will now enable the function get_lock_parent_ip(), otherwise it wont be > > defined. It will also disable the frame-address warnings from gcc in > > the kernel directory. > > > > Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> > > -and-tested-by: me > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> > > Thanks Steve! >
