From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FDAC43461 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A150A221E3 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="BSfEOqQJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A150A221E3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Bp6KP6fbkzDqwb for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 06:09:13 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=vaibhav@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=BSfEOqQJ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Bp6H26qD1zDqwC for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 06:07:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08BK2P8a179920; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:06:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=VIbS5G2GEVqcOMhxOT96TlyN4UrZ6Kqtj54amtcUQAE=; b=BSfEOqQJ2XGOEGUO/69pX6/7K9wmFWLSk/HgaivS78HZee36GD7apW1Gk71MdY1mPRed Ao6WWoacLPM1EskWuYAZpkX/1qIEheOn6VO0fhxzHG0GpI960VW3/3J/QRFfvrdf2BFc uYaRL/8B+yOUYZIFVrMGuY3Gu98ikOPl8pblqgtgyk7CVL7H6WTGhJMcqqLp4f82lenr nDk83p72HnIZyndUmbkiPFh0sZoJYfY1gyXWCAafs3uHZBYTS/2Jg6gR7t7v95nmEV5r uj0/nwxHoF5bidIwBMaTCOnW6u0ZnpLZ5QXBYdoS+nRT39LWrL5SCsRb+32tKYCDKfkx /Q== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33gexu1jd0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:06:57 -0400 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 08BK4S5o187221; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:06:57 -0400 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33gexu1jc4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:06:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08BK30ac028061; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:06:55 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 33e5gmtc28-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:06:54 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 08BK6qsc10748254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:06:52 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A66A5204F; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:06:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from vajain21.in.ibm.com (unknown [9.199.53.34]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C50052059; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:06:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: by vajain21.in.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:36:46 +0530 From: Vaibhav Jain To: Ira Weiny Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/papr_scm: Fix warning triggered by perf_stats_show() In-Reply-To: <20200910155552.GN1930795@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> References: <20200910092212.107674-1-vaibhav@linux.ibm.com> <20200910155552.GN1930795@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:36:46 +0530 Message-ID: <878sdgqdrd.fsf@vajain21.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-11_10:2020-09-10, 2020-09-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=1 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009110157 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Santosh Sivaraj , linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Oliver O'Halloran , Dan Williams , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Thanks for reviewing this patch Ira, Ira Weiny writes: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:52:12PM +0530, Vaibhav Jain wrote: >> A warning is reported by the kernel in case perf_stats_show() returns >> an error code. The warning is of the form below: >> >> papr_scm ibm,persistent-memory:ibm,pmemory@44100001: >> Failed to query performance stats, Err:-10 >> dev_attr_show: perf_stats_show+0x0/0x1c0 [papr_scm] returned bad count >> fill_read_buffer: dev_attr_show+0x0/0xb0 returned bad count >> >> On investigation it looks like that the compiler is silently truncating the >> return value of drc_pmem_query_stats() from 'long' to 'int', since the >> variable used to store the return code 'rc' is an 'int'. This >> truncated value is then returned back as a 'ssize_t' back from >> perf_stats_show() to 'dev_attr_show()' which thinks of it as a large >> unsigned number and triggers this warning.. >> >> To fix this we update the type of variable 'rc' from 'int' to >> 'ssize_t' that prevents the compiler from truncating the return value >> of drc_pmem_query_stats() and returning correct signed value back from >> perf_stats_show(). >> >> Fixes: 2d02bf835e573 ('powerpc/papr_scm: Fetch nvdimm performance >> stats from PHYP') >> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Jain >> --- >> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >> index a88a707a608aa..9f00b61676ab9 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >> @@ -785,7 +785,8 @@ static int papr_scm_ndctl(struct nvdimm_bus_descriptor *nd_desc, >> static ssize_t perf_stats_show(struct device *dev, >> struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) >> { >> - int index, rc; >> + int index; >> + ssize_t rc; > > I'm not sure this is really fixing everything here. The issue is with the statement in perf_stats_show(): 'return rc ? rc : seq_buf_used(&s);' The function seq_buf_used() returns an 'unsigned int' and with 'rc' typed as 'int', forces a promotion of the expression to 'unsigned int' which causes a loss of signedness of 'rc' and compiler silently assigns this unsigned value to the function return typed as 'signed long'. Making 'rc', a 'signed long' forces a promotion of the expresion to 'signed long' which preserves the signedness of 'rc' and will also be compatible with the function return type. > > drc_pmem_query_stats() can return negative errno's. Why are those not checked > somewhere in perf_stats_show()? > For the specific invocation 'drc_pmem_query_stats(p, stats, 0)' we only expect return value 'rc <=0' with '0' indicating a successful fetch of nvdimm performance stats from hypervisor. Hence there are no explicit checks for negative error codes in the functions as all return values !=0 indicate an error. > It seems like all this fix is handling is a > 0 return value: 'ret[0]' from > line 289 in papr_scm.c... Or something? No, in case the arg 'num_stats' is '0' and 'buff_stats != NULL' the variable 'size' is assigned a non-zero value hence that specific branch you mentioned is never taken. Instead in case of success drc_pmem_query_stats() return '0' and in case of an error a negative error code is returned. > > Worse yet drc_pmem_query_stats() is returning ssize_t which is a signed value. > Therefore, it should not be returning -errno. I'm surprised the static > checkers did not catch that. Didnt quite get the assertion here. The function is marked to return 'ssize_t' because we can return both +ve for success and -ve values to indicate errors. > > I believe I caught similar errors with a patch series before which did not pay > attention to variable types. > > Please audit this code for these types of errors and ensure you are really > doing the correct thing when using the sysfs interface. I'm pretty sure bad > things will eventually happen (if they are not already) if you return some > really big number to the sysfs core from *_show(). I think this problem is different compared to what you had previously pointed to. The values returned from drc_pmem_query_stats() can be stored in an 'int' variable too, however it was the silent promotion of a signed type to unsigned type was what caused this specific issue. -- Cheers ~ Vaibhav