From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
To: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Holzheu <holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Range checking on r1 in function reg_set_seen in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:40:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <96c114c8-1369-05d3-6b44-78ac4e5e73fb@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8b280523cf98294bee897615de84546e241b4e11.camel@linux.ibm.com>
On 15/07/2021 13:09, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 13:02 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Static analysis with cppcheck picked up an interesting issue with the
>> following inline helper function in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c :
>>
>> static inline void reg_set_seen(struct bpf_jit *jit, u32 b1)
>> {
>> u32 r1 = reg2hex[b1];
>>
>> if (!jit->seen_reg[r1] && r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15)
>> jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
>> }
>>
>> Although I believe r1 is always within range, the range check on r1
>> is
>> being performed before the more cache/memory expensive lookup on
>> jit->seen_reg[r1]. I can't see why the range change is being
>> performed
>> after the access of jit->seen_reg[r1]. The following seems more
>> correct:
>>
>> if (r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15 && !jit->seen_reg[r1])
>> jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
>>
>> ..since the check on r1 are less expensive than !jit->seen_reg[r1]
>> and
>> also the range check ensures the array access is not out of bounds. I
>> was just wondering if I'm missing something deeper to why the order
>> is
>> the way it is.
>>
>> Colin
>
> Hi,
>
> I think your analysis is correct, thanks for spotting this!
> Even though I don't think the performance difference would be
> measurable here, not confusing future readers is a good reason
> to make a change that you suggest.
> Do you plan to send a patch?
I'll send a patch later today. Colin
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-15 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-15 12:02 Range checking on r1 in function reg_set_seen in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c Colin Ian King
2021-07-15 12:09 ` Ilya Leoshkevich
2021-07-15 12:40 ` Colin Ian King [this message]
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=96c114c8-1369-05d3-6b44-78ac4e5e73fb@canonical.com \
--to=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=holzheu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=iii@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.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