From 2ea9595fcbb63dca2a09a87f19e8598b6346860e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Menzel Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 19:53:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] cpu/x86/smm: Fix uintptr_t type mismatches in print statements The 64-bit compiler x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc-10 aborts the build with the format warning below: CC ramstage/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.o src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c: In function 'smm_create_map': src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c:146:19: error: format '%zx' expects argument of type 'size_t', but argument 3 has type 'uintptr_t' {aka 'long unsigned int'} [-Werror=format=] 146 | " smbase %zx entry %zx\n", | ~~^ | | | unsigned int | %lx 147 | cpus[i].smbase, cpus[i].entry); | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | | uintptr_t {aka long unsigned int} In coreboot `uintptr_t` is defined in `src/include/stdint.h`: typedef unsigned long uintptr_t; As `size_t` is defined as `long unsigned int` in i386-elf (32-bit), the length modifier `z` matches there. With x86_64-elf/x86_64-linux-gnu (64-bit) and `-m32` `size_t` is defined as `unsigned int` resulting in a type mismatch. Normally, `PRIxPTR` would need to be used as a length modifier, but as coreboot always defines `uintptr_t` to `unsigned long` (and in `src/include/inttypes.h` also defines `PRIxPTR` as `"lx"`), use the length modifier `l` to make the code more readable. Found-by: x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110 Fixes: afb7a814 ("cpu/x86/smm: Introduce SMM module loader version 2") Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel Change-Id: I32bff397c8a033fe34390e6c1a7dfe773707a4e8 Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54341 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Werner Zeh --- src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c b/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c index e3b84179f4..6d999a7290 100644 --- a/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c +++ b/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c @@ -143,10 +143,10 @@ static int smm_create_map(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus, for (i = 0; i < num_cpus; i++) { printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "CPU 0x%x\n", i); printk(BIOS_DEBUG, - " smbase %zx entry %zx\n", + " smbase %lx entry %lx\n", cpus[i].smbase, cpus[i].entry); printk(BIOS_DEBUG, - " ss_start %zx code_end %zx\n", + " ss_start %lx code_end %lx\n", cpus[i].ss_start, cpus[i].code_end); seg_count++; if (seg_count >= cpus_in_segment) { @@ -217,13 +217,13 @@ static int smm_place_entry_code(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus, if (cpus[num_cpus].active) { if (cpus[num_cpus - 1].smbase + SMM_ENTRY_OFFSET < stack_top) { printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: stack encroachment\n", __func__); - printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: smbase %zx, stack_top %lx\n", + printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: smbase %lx, stack_top %lx\n", __func__, cpus[num_cpus].smbase, stack_top); return 0; } } - printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s: smbase %zx, stack_top %lx\n", + printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s: smbase %lx, stack_top %lx\n", __func__, cpus[num_cpus-1].smbase, stack_top); /* start at 1, the first CPU stub code is already there */ @@ -231,9 +231,9 @@ static int smm_place_entry_code(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus, for (i = 1; i < num_cpus; i++) { memcpy((int *)cpus[i].code_start, (int *)cpus[0].code_start, size); printk(BIOS_DEBUG, - "SMM Module: placing smm entry code at %zx, cpu # 0x%x\n", + "SMM Module: placing smm entry code at %lx, cpu # 0x%x\n", cpus[i].code_start, i); - printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s: copying from %zx to %zx 0x%x bytes\n", + printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s: copying from %lx to %lx 0x%x bytes\n", __func__, cpus[0].code_start, cpus[i].code_start, size); } return 1;