Re: Build failure on PowerPC in pf

We already have PR for this issue :)

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=187074

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:57:00 +0400
Gleb Smirnoff <glebius_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote:

>   John-Mark,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:20:17PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> J> Justin Hibbits wrote this message on Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:12 -0800:
> J> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Justin Hibbits <jrh29_at_alumni.cwru.edu> wrote:
> J> > > Building on PowerPC I see the following failure:
> J> > >
> J> > > cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> J> > >
> J> > > /home/chmeee/freebsd/head/sys/modules/pf/../../netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:
> J> > > In function 'pfioctl':
> J> > > /home/chmeee/freebsd/head/sys/modules/pf/../../netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:1357:warning:
> J> > > cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
> J> > > /home/chmeee/freebsd/head/sys/modules/pf/../../netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:1359:warning:
> J> > > cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
> J> > > /home/chmeee/freebsd/head/sys/modules/pf/../../netpfil/pf/pf_ioctl.c:1361:warning:
> J> > > cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
> J> > >
> J> > > struct pf_rule has counter_u64_t entries, which are actually pointers
> J> > > to uint64_t's.  These pointers get assigned from the result of
> J> > > counter_u64_fetch(), which returns a uint64_t.  Looks to me like
> J> > > there's a bug in here, but I have no idea what to do to fix it.  And
> J> > > I'm surprised this hasn't been reported against other 32-bit
> J> > > architectures.
> J> > 
> J> > Replying to myself, it looks like this was broken by r261882.
> J> 
> J> This comment says it all:
> J> 1352 	glebius 	261882 	/*
> J> 1353 	  	  	* XXXGL: this is what happens when internal kernel
> J> 1354 	  	  	* structures are used as ioctl API structures.
> J> 1355 	  	  	*/
> J> 
> J> So, one way could be to use a union for the states:
> J> union {
> J> 	struct {
> J> 		counter_u64_t states_cur;
> J> 		counter_u64_t states_tot;
> J> 		counter_u64_t src_nodes;
> J> 	} k;
> J> 	struct {
> J> 		uint64_t states_cur;
> J> 		uint64_t states_tot;
> J> 		uint64_t src_nodes;
> J> 	} u;
> J> } u;
> J> 
> J> The other option is to cast through uintptr_t...
> J> 
> J> Even though it'd make the code a bit more ugly, I'd vote for the union,
> J> since it's designed for what the code is trying to do...
> 
> Would above guarantee us that members of "k" won't cross on members
> of "u" when we fill them one by one?
> 
> 	u.states_cur = counter_u64_fetch(k.states_cur);
> 	u.states_tot = counter_u64_fetch(k.states_tot);
> 
> I'd prefer:
> 
> 	union states_cur {
> 		counter_u64_t k;
> 		uint64_t u;
> 	}
> 	union states_tot {
> 		counter_u64_t k;
> 		uint64_t u;
> 	}
> 	union src_nodes {
> 		counter_u64_t k;
> 		uint64_t u;
> 	}
> 
> Or am I overcautious?
> 
> -- 
> Totus tuus, Glebius.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"


-- 
Best Regards!

Michael Pounov <misho_at_elwix.org>

+359 888 737358, +359 899 737358
WWW: http://www.elwix.org/
XMPP: misho_at_aitnet.org
Skype: mpunov