commit b1112139 upstream.

gcc-10 will rename --param=allow-store-data-races=0
to -fno-allow-store-data-races.

The flag change happened at https://gcc.gnu.org/PR92046

.

Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>
Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Backlund <tmb@mageia.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit adc71920 upstream.

gcc-10 now warns about passing aliasing pointers to functions that take
restricted pointers.

That's actually a great warning, and if we ever start using 'restrict'
in the kernel, it might be quite useful.  But right now we don't, and it
turns out that the only thing this warns about is an idiom where we have
declared a few functions to be "printf-like" (which seems to make gcc
pick up the restricted pointer thing), and then we print to the same
buffer that we also use as an input.

And people do that as an odd concatenation pattern, with code like this:

    #define sysfs_show_gen_prop(buffer, fmt, ...) \
        snprintf(buffer, PAGE_SIZE, "%s"fmt, buffer, __VA_ARGS__)

where we have 'buffer' as both the destination of the final result, and
as the initial argument.

Yes, it's a bit questionable.  And outside of the kernel, people do have
standard declarations like

    int snprintf( char *restrict buffer, size_t bufsz,
                  const char *restrict format, ... );

where that output buffer is marked as a restrict pointer that cannot
alias with any other arguments.

But in the context of the kernel, that 'use snprintf() to concatenate to
the end result' does work, and the pattern shows up in multiple places.
And we have not marked our own version of snprintf() as taking restrict
pointers, so the warning is incorrect for now, and gcc picks it up on
its own.

If we do start using 'restrict' in the kernel (and it might be a good
idea if people find places where it matters), we'll need to figure out
how to avoid this issue for snprintf and friends.  But in the meantime,
this warning is not useful.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 5a76021c upstream.

This is the final array bounds warning removal for gcc-10 for now.

Again, the warning is good, and we should re-enable all these warnings
when we have converted all the legacy array declaration cases to
flexible arrays. But in the meantime, it's just noise.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 44720996 upstream.

This is another fine warning, related to the 'zero-length-bounds' one,
but hitting the same historical code in the kernel.

Because C didn't historically support flexible array members, we have
code that instead uses a one-sized array, the same way we have cases of
zero-sized arrays.

The one-sized arrays come from either not wanting to use the gcc
zero-sized array extension, or from a slight convenience-feature, where
particularly for strings, the size of the structure now includes the
allocation for the final NUL character.

So with a "char name[1];" at the end of a structure, you can do things
like

       v = my_malloc(sizeof(struct vendor) + strlen(name));

and avoid the "+1" for the terminator.

Yes, the modern way to do that is with a flexible array, and using
'offsetof()' instead of 'sizeof()', and adding the "+1" by hand.  That
also technically gets the size "more correct" in that it avoids any
alignment (and thus padding) issues, but this is another long-term
cleanup thing that will not happen for 5.7.

So disable the warning for now, even though it's potentially quite
useful.  Having a slew of warnings that then hide more urgent new issues
is not an improvement.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 5c45de21 upstream.

This is a fine warning, but we still have a number of zero-length arrays
in the kernel that come from the traditional gcc extension.  Yes, they
are getting converted to flexible arrays, but in the meantime the gcc-10
warning about zero-length bounds is very verbose, and is hiding other
issues.

I missed one actual build failure because it was hidden among hundreds
of lines of warning.  Thankfully I caught it on the second go before
pushing things out, but it convinced me that I really need to disable
the new warnings for now.

We'll hopefully be all done with our conversion to flexible arrays in
the not too distant future, and we can then re-enable this warning.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 78a5255f upstream.

We have some rather random rules about when we accept the
"maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.

For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also
if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size.  And then various kernel
config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that
warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).

And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so
it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.

At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that
warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.

So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by
default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the
extra compiler warnings, use W=123".

Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never
confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not?
Yes, it would.  In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and
our source code would be simpler.

That's currently not the world we live in, though.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

[ Upstream commit c473a8d0 ]

The dt_binding_check is added to PHONY, but it is invisible when
$(dtstree) is empty. So, it is not specified as phony for
ARCH=x86 etc.

Add it to PHONY outside the ifneq ... endif block.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

[ Upstream commit 964a596d ]

The dtbs_check should be a phony target, but currently it is not
specified so.

'make dtbs_check' works even if a file named 'dtbs_check' exists
because it depends on another phony target, scripts_dtc, but we
should not rely on it.

Add dtbs_check to PHONY.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

commit b1fbfcb4 upstream.

Commit 2dffd23f ("kbuild: make single target builds much faster")
made the situation much better.

To improve it even more, apply the similar idea to the top Makefile.
Trim unrelated directories from build-dirs.

The single build code must be moved above the 'descend' target.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Tested-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 35e046a2 upstream.

When single-build is set, everything in $(MAKECMDGOALS) is a single
target. You can use $(MAKECMDGOALS) to list out the single targets.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit 7ecaf069 upstream.

Currently, some sanity checks for uapi headers are done by
scripts/headers_check.pl, which is wired up to the 'headers_check'
target in the top Makefile.

It is true compiling headers has better test coverage, but there
are still several headers excluded from the compile test. I like
to keep headers_check.pl for a while, but we can delete a lot of
code by moving the build rule to usr/include/Makefile.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

commit fcbb8461 upstream.

There are both positive and negative options about this feature.
At first, I thought it was a good idea, but actually Linus stated a
negative opinion (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/29/227

). I admit it
is ugly and annoying.

The baseline I'd like to keep is the compile-test of uapi headers.
(Otherwise, kernel developers have no way to ensure the correctness
of the exported headers.)

I will maintain a small build rule in usr/include/Makefile.
Remove the other header test functionality.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
[ added to 5.4.y due to start of build warnings from backported patches
  because of this feature - gregkh]
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>