Build failure on PowerPC in pf

[Gleb Smirnoff]

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...

Union should work fine. I will try to handle that today.

Since it bites me for the third time, I'm even ready to add 3 uint64_t fields
to pf_rule, they will be used only in ioctl(). Not used through the kernel.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.