quoted

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 08:51:07AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:

quoted

After spending some time debugging this with Nick, it looks like the
error is caused by a recent optimization change in LLVM, which together
with the inlining of ur_load_imm_any into jeq_imm, changes a runtime
check in FIELD_FIT that would always fail, to a compile-time check that
breaks the build. In jeq_imm, we have:

    /* struct bpf_insn: _s32 imm */
    u64 imm = insn->imm; /* sign extend */
    ...
    if (imm >> 32) { /* non-zero only if insn->imm is negative */
            /* inlined from ur_load_imm_any */
    u32 __imm = imm >> 32; /* therefore, always 0xffffffff */

        /*
     * __imm has a value known at compile-time, which means
     * __builtin_constant_p(__imm) is true and we end up with
     * essentially this in __BF_FIELD_CHECK:
     */
    if (__builtin_constant_p(__imm) && __imm > 255)

I think FIELD_FIT() should not pass the value into __BF_FIELD_CHECK().

So:

diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
index 48ea093ff04c..4e035aca6f7e 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
  */
 #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val)                                         \
        ({                                                              \
-               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_FIT: ");     \
+               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_FIT: ");     \
                !((((typeof(_mask))_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & ~(_mask)); \
        })

It's perfectly legal to pass a constant which does not fit, in which
case FIELD_FIT() should just return false not break the build.

Right?