From: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 4/4] gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and _set_value
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 10:00:33 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201101150033.GA68138@shinobu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3f=fuq24QwNee3QgoMcSK5rcvLRpdTOWBZ9NJ4d-4bvA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6544 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:44:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 11:44 PM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch reimplements the xgpio_set_multiple() function in
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c to use the new generic functions:
> > bitmap_get_value() and bitmap_set_value(). The code is now simpler
> > to read and understand. Moreover, instead of looping for each bit
> > in xgpio_set_multiple() function, now we can check each channel at
> > a time and save cycles.
>
> This now causes -Wtype-limits warnings in linux-next with gcc-10:
Hi Arnd,
What version of gcc-10 are you running? I'm having trouble generating
these warnings so I suspect I'm using a different version than you.
Regardless I can see your concern about the code, and I think I have a
solution.
>
> > + u32 *const state = chip->gpio_state;
> > + unsigned int *const width = chip->gpio_width;
> > +
> > + DECLARE_BITMAP(old, 64);
> > + DECLARE_BITMAP(new, 64);
> > + DECLARE_BITMAP(changed, 64);
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->gpio_lock[0], flags);
> > + spin_lock(&chip->gpio_lock[1]);
> > +
> > + bitmap_set_value(old, state[0], 0, width[0]);
> > + bitmap_set_value(old, state[1], width[0], width[1]);
>
> In file included from ../include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/cpumask.h:5,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h:11,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:22,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/timex.h:5,
> from ../include/linux/timex.h:65,
> from ../include/linux/time32.h:13,
> from ../include/linux/time.h:73,
> from ../include/linux/stat.h:19,
> from ../include/linux/module.h:13,
> from ../drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c:11:
> ../include/linux/bitmap.h:639:18: warning: array subscript [1,
> 67108864] is outside array bounds of 'long unsigned int[1]'
> [-Warray-bounds]
> 639 | map[index + 1] |= value >> space;
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from ../include/linux/kasan-checks.h:5,
> from ../include/asm-generic/rwonce.h:26,
> from ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/rwonce.h:1,
> from ../include/linux/compiler.h:246,
> from ../include/linux/build_bug.h:5,
> from ../include/linux/bits.h:22,
> from ../include/linux/bitops.h:6,
> from ../drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c:8:
> ../drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c:144:17: note: while referencing 'old'
> 144 | DECLARE_BITMAP(old, 64);
> | ^~~
> ../include/linux/types.h:11:16: note: in definition of macro 'DECLARE_BITMAP'
> 11 | unsigned long name[BITS_TO_LONGS(bits)]
> | ^~~~
> In file included from ../include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/cpumask.h:5,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h:11,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:22,
> from ../arch/x86/include/asm/timex.h:5,
> from ../include/linux/timex.h:65,
> from ../include/linux/time32.h:13,
> from ../include/linux/time.h:73,
> from ../include/linux/stat.h:19,
> from ../include/linux/module.h:13,
> from ../drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c:11:
>
> The compiler clearly tries to do range-checking here and notices
> that the index into the fixed-length array on the stack is not correctly
> bounded. It seems this would happen whenever width[0] + width[1]
> is larger than 64.
>
> I have just submitted patches for all other -Wtype-limits warnings
> and would like to enable this option by default. Can you try to find
> a way to make this code safer? I would expect that you need a
> variant of bitmap_set_value() that takes an explicit ceiling here,
> and checks the stand and nbits values against that.
>
> Arnd
Let me first verify that I understand the problem correctly. The issue
is the possibility of a stack smash in bitmap_set_value() when the value
of start + nbits is larger than the length of the map bitmap memory
region. This is because index (or index + 1) could be outside the range
of the bitmap memory region passed in as map. Is my understanding
correct here?
In xgpio_set_multiple(), the variables width[0] and width[1] serve as
possible start and nbits values for the bitmap_set_value() calls.
Because width[0] and width[1] are unsigned int variables, GCC considers
the possibility that the value of width[0]/width[1] might exceed the
length of the bitmap memory region named old and thus result in a stack
smash.
I don't know if invalid width values are actually possible for the
Xilinx gpio device, but let's err on the side of safety and assume this
is actually a possibility. We should verify that the combined value of
gpio_width[0] + gpio_width[1] does not exceed 64 bits; we can add a
check for this in xgpio_probe() when we grab the gpio_width values.
However, we're still left with the GCC warnings because GCC is not smart
enough to know that we've already checked the boundary and width[0] and
width[1] are valid values. I suspect we can avoid this warning is we
refactor bitmap_set_value() to increment map seperately and then set it:
static inline void bitmap_set_value(unsigned long *map,
unsigned long value,
unsigned long start, unsigned long nbits)
{
const unsigned long offset = start % BITS_PER_LONG;
const unsigned long ceiling = round_up(start + 1, BITS_PER_LONG);
const unsigned long space = ceiling - start;
map += BIT_WORD(start);
value &= GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0);
if (space >= nbits) {
*map &= ~(GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0) << offset);
*map |= value << offset;
} else {
*map &= ~BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
*map |= value << offset;
map++;
*map &= ~BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(start + nbits);
*map |= value >> space;
}
}
This avoids adding a costly conditional check inside bitmap_set_value()
when almost all bitmap_set_value() calls will have static arguments with
well-defined and obvious boundaries.
Do you think this would be an acceptable solution to resolve your GCC
warnings?
Sincerely,
William Breathitt Gray
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-01 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-18 21:37 [PATCH v12 0/4] Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-10-18 21:40 ` [PATCH v12 3/4] gpio: thunderx: Utilize " Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-05 9:10 ` Linus Walleij
2020-10-18 21:41 ` [PATCH v12 4/4] gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and _set_value Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-10-29 22:44 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-11-01 15:00 ` William Breathitt Gray [this message]
2020-11-01 20:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-11-09 12:34 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-09 13:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-11-09 13:41 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-09 14:38 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-09 14:48 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-09 15:18 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-09 14:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-11-09 16:45 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-09 17:11 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-09 17:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-11-09 17:31 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-10 10:02 ` Michal Simek
2020-11-10 12:35 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-10 17:22 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-10 17:43 ` William Breathitt Gray
2020-11-10 22:00 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-13 16:52 ` Syed Nayyar Waris
2020-11-20 13:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-11-20 13:45 ` William Breathitt Gray
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=20201101150033.GA68138@shinobu \
--to=vilhelm.gray@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=syednwaris@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).