From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous code in cpumask_of_cpu?
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:29:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487387DE.90602@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ej64n3xt.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christoph/Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Looked at cpumask_of_cpu as introduced in
>>>> 9f0e8d0400d925c3acd5f4e01dbeb736e4011882 (x86: convert cpumask_of_cpu macro
>>>> to allocated array), and I don't think it's safe:
>>>>
>>>> #define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) \
>>>> (*({ \
>>>> typeof(_unused_cpumask_arg_) m; \
>>>> if (sizeof(m) == sizeof(unsigned long)) { \
>>>> m.bits[0] = 1UL<<(cpu); \
>>>> } else { \
>>>> cpus_clear(m); \
>>>> cpu_set((cpu), m); \
>>>> } \
>>>> &m; \
>>>> }))
>>>>
>>>> Referring to &m once out of scope is invalid, and I can't find any evidence
>>>> that it's legal here. In particular, the change
>>>> b53e921ba1cff8453dc9a87a84052fa12d5b30bd (generic: reduce stack pressure in
>>>> sched_affinity) which passes &m to other functions seems highly risky.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised this hasn't already hit us, but perhaps gcc isn't as clever as
>>>> it could be?
>>> You don't refer to &m outside scope. Look at the character below the
>>> first e of #define :)
>> Oh, well you do access it outside scope, sorry. Me sleepy.
>>
>> I guess because we dereference it immediately again, the location is not
>> clobbered yet. At least in my test case, gcc assembled it to code that
>> puts the address in eax and derefences it immediately, before eax is
>> reused:
>
> Gee, just ignore this bs. The address is in eax, not the value.
>
>> static int *foo(void)
>> {
>> int x = 42;
>> return &x;
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> return *foo();
>> }
>
> However, this code seems to produce valid assembly with -O2. gcc just
> warns and fixes it up.
>
> Hannes
IIRC, the problem was I needed an lvalue and it seems that the *(&m) was
the way I was able to coerce gcc into producing it. That's not to say there
may be a better way however... ;-) [Btw, I picked up this technique in the
(original) per_cpu() macro.]
Note the lvalue isn't used for changing the cpumask value, but for sending it
to functions like set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to avoid pushing the 512 bytes of a
4096 cpus cpumask onto the stack. So it becomes &(*(&m))) ... ;-) But I
thought I checked the assembly for different config options and it looked ok.
Thanks,
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-08 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-08 8:16 Dangerous code in cpumask_of_cpu? Rusty Russell
2008-07-08 8:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 8:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 9:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 9:28 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 15:29 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2008-07-09 2:22 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-09 14:42 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-08 9:33 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-08 10:24 ` Andreas Schwab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=487387DE.90602@sgi.com \
--to=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@saeurebad.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.