From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DF3933C7 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id r10so7554550wrp.3 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 04:18:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=W95klwG+EWnuJlXqfneyIPG4bMJIpYFCGfgCPBAo/s4=; b=BVoUYAMy6igzOx7YCxgmD2obGVeA4FBbFy39UaDXpcyotfQj1WSs4cD2dBmZ3jehpH Xv0H27JfD7LtNc3KTOYt5JsPQaESLbVZdrRIjVdCS/EqEN+LtHV3OI92ZhbhaxnOPsMB zwIbvmQMtvcWtqQz/AOpNYfJzkMTFsv4hojr0PuJEFUbZHgxYNi3BKpDV1mgkUzm+fR0 4lMaaRE5yh5PGutSdpreHiYAqhMDl6KUHTvi2q6aV5S93rhbYz2wGWOzwPq3hB3YVbYG uAhL64o8wkOM/gpLUr2Hb7oB/DraMZLkoBj2jGHmKGFPjyxdoWyrLbd/6WyXGtmMO48w vp2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=W95klwG+EWnuJlXqfneyIPG4bMJIpYFCGfgCPBAo/s4=; b=72PRCO3fB9P4qZGQ1n+FiU3FA0ng5v81pCZ58yOjZmPZcHuzwTKZnhYo7tEiEQm2Ve O3QUro6KBcwCPLWokjQn2jJSenRP8lH0jI6Yb18RD6Fn8TbUPXukmXwOCs90jdG/d4QN 4HqQe32LCanVXQIRDXN5/jgouUmSBPtZzLfbmw0bD9cAPlxTMWXftp5MdkLXePKbJCnh 1k1/bv5bh0/WUymazY5SkMOKGfqVQhqdcHYaORO8oUfLAXlGDDOcGgoTK3tyC2wCSuk1 D1HKx7XqO3NYSj3AAmiAxUV1fAdoRNUOq/x23AO2Cmz351u9VOo+q8BC/7zBpWu/t4Mf 1gxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oZQS6YoC9Zd9wFTi9OYBC3Bb5LC9z6BHrJykUvF+5uG5eoNIm +739D5IsjkI2uY5ctAuP+8sUTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgYeUN7RS9hQRShRziePljKQd/1cMutSSEkk4MeQ2QRRtTjZSLz5QSndDd2pML49XlqkHAqw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6d0d:0:b0:1e8:7b6a:38e7 with SMTP id e13-20020a5d6d0d000000b001e87b6a38e7mr26568054wrq.625.1646309908722; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 04:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from maple.lan (cpc141216-aztw34-2-0-cust174.18-1.cable.virginm.net. [80.7.220.175]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p6-20020a5d4586000000b001f0436cb325sm1774600wrq.52.2022.03.03.04.18.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Mar 2022 04:18:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 12:18:24 +0000 From: Daniel Thompson To: Xiaomeng Tong Cc: david.laight@aculab.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, gustavo@embeddedor.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, c.giuffrida@vu.nl, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, h.j.bos@vu.nl, jgg@ziepe.ca, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, jakobkoschel@gmail.com, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, christian.koenig@amd.com, rppt@kernel.org Subject: Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] [PATCH 2/6] treewide: remove using list iterator after loop body as a ptr Message-ID: <20220303121824.qdyrognluik74iph@maple.lan> References: <39404befad5b44b385698ff65465abe5@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20220303072657.11124-1-xiam0nd.tong@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220303072657.11124-1-xiam0nd.tong@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:26:57PM +0800, Xiaomeng Tong wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 04:58:23 +0000, David Laight wrote: > > on 3 Mar 2022 10:27:29 +0800, Xiaomeng Tong wrote: > > > The problem is the mis-use of iterator outside the loop on exit, and > > > the iterator will be the HEAD's container_of pointer which pointers > > > to a type-confused struct. Sidenote: The *mis-use* here refers to > > > mistakely access to other members of the struct, instead of the > > > list_head member which acutally is the valid HEAD. > > > > The problem is that the HEAD's container_of pointer should never > > be calculated at all. > > This is what is fundamentally broken about the current definition. > > Yes, the rule is "the HEAD's container_of pointer should never be > calculated at all outside the loop", but how do you make sure everyone > follows this rule? Your formulation of the rule is correct: never run container_of() on HEAD pointer. However the rule that is introduced by list_for_each_entry_inside() is *not* this rule. The rule it introduces is: never access the iterator variable outside the loop. Making the iterator NULL on loop exit does follow the rule you proposed but using a different technique: do not allow HEAD to be stored in the iterator variable after loop exit. This also makes it impossible to run container_of() on the HEAD pointer. > Everyone makes mistakes, but we can eliminate them all from the beginning > with the help of compiler which can catch such use-after-loop things. Indeed but if we introduce new interfaces then we don't have to worry about existing usages and silent regressions. Code will have been written knowing the loop can exit with the iterator set to NULL. Sure it is still possible for programmers to make mistakes and dereference the NULL pointer but C programmers are well training w.r.t. NULL pointer checking so such mistakes are much less likely than with the current list_for_each_entry() macro. This risk must be offset against the way a NULLify approach can lead to more elegant code when we are doing a list search. Daniel.