From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Sachin P Sant <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:07 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A0A2E57.7080709@ct.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090512155637.19380.9114.sendpatchset@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com>
Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:16 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:16:14PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Subrata,
>>
>>> With gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090429 (prerelease), i get the following build warning:
>> Patch looks good (you can add a
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>)
>> But I don't maintain this code anymore. Please resend to x86@kernel.org
>> cc linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org for merge.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Andi
>
>
> With gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090429 (prerelease), i get the following build warning:
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/signal.o
> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c: In function ‘sys_sigreturn’:
> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c:573: warning: ‘set.sig[1]’ may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> On investigation i found that this is because of the evaluation
> precedence of the expression below:
>
> 569 unsigned long sys_sigreturn(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 570 {
> 571 struct sigframe __user *frame;
> 572 unsigned long ax;
> 573 sigset_t set;
> 574
> 575 frame = (struct sigframe __user *)(regs->sp - 8);
> 576
> 577 if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> 578 goto badframe;
> 579 if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
> 580 && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> 581 sizeof(frame->extramask))))
>
> The initialization for set.sig[1] may not occur if
> __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask)
> evalutes to true. So, the compiler is complaining.
>
> I have devised a small patch for this which wanes away this warning
> without changing the conditional evaluation criteria. Let me know if
> you like this patch.
>
> 582 goto badframe;
> 583
> 584 sigdelsetmask(&set, ~_BLOCKABLE);
> 585 spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> 586 current->blocked = set;
> 587 recalc_sigpending();
> 588 spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> 589
> 590 if (restore_sigcontext(regs, &frame->sc, &ax))
> 591 goto badframe;
> 592 return ax;
> 593
> 594 badframe:
> 595 signal_fault(regs, frame, "sigreturn");
> 596
> 597 return 0;
> 598 }
>
> Signed-Off-By: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> To: <x86@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Sachin P Sant <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> ---
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-12 10:59:24.000000000 +0530
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-12 16:57:32.000000000 +0530
> @@ -576,9 +576,10 @@ unsigned long sys_sigreturn(struct pt_re
>
> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> goto badframe;
> - if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
> - && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> - sizeof(frame->extramask))))
> +
> + if ( (__copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> + sizeof(frame->extramask)) && _NSIG_WORDS > 1) ||
> + __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask))
> goto badframe;
I'm not sure why this eliminates that warning.
set.sig[0] may not be initialized too, if __copy_from_user() failed.
I don't have enough time to look at this right now, sorry.
Another question, __copy_from_user() will be called even if
_NSIG_WORDS is less than 2, perhaps it never occurs.
I think, to check _NSIG_WORDS > 1 before calling __copy_from_user()
is better.
Thanks,
Hiroshi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-13 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-12 15:56 [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c Subrata Modak
2009-05-13 2:20 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto [this message]
2009-05-13 9:06 ` Subrata Modak
2009-05-13 13:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-13 20:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 0:24 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-14 6:30 Subrata Modak
2009-05-14 7:38 ` [PATCH] " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-14 9:12 Subrata Modak
2009-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH] " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-15 3:32 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-15 10:16 ` Subrata Modak
2009-05-18 3:36 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-18 6:38 ` Subrata Modak
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=4A0A2E57.7080709@ct.jp.nec.com \
--to=h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.