From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous code in cpumask_of_cpu?
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:29:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487387DE.90602@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ej64n3xt.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christoph/Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Looked at cpumask_of_cpu as introduced in
>>>> 9f0e8d0400d925c3acd5f4e01dbeb736e4011882 (x86: convert cpumask_of_cpu macro
>>>> to allocated array), and I don't think it's safe:
>>>>
>>>> #define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) \
>>>> (*({ \
>>>> typeof(_unused_cpumask_arg_) m; \
>>>> if (sizeof(m) == sizeof(unsigned long)) { \
>>>> m.bits[0] = 1UL<<(cpu); \
>>>> } else { \
>>>> cpus_clear(m); \
>>>> cpu_set((cpu), m); \
>>>> } \
>>>> &m; \
>>>> }))
>>>>
>>>> Referring to &m once out of scope is invalid, and I can't find any evidence
>>>> that it's legal here. In particular, the change
>>>> b53e921ba1cff8453dc9a87a84052fa12d5b30bd (generic: reduce stack pressure in
>>>> sched_affinity) which passes &m to other functions seems highly risky.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised this hasn't already hit us, but perhaps gcc isn't as clever as
>>>> it could be?
>>> You don't refer to &m outside scope. Look at the character below the
>>> first e of #define :)
>> Oh, well you do access it outside scope, sorry. Me sleepy.
>>
>> I guess because we dereference it immediately again, the location is not
>> clobbered yet. At least in my test case, gcc assembled it to code that
>> puts the address in eax and derefences it immediately, before eax is
>> reused:
>
> Gee, just ignore this bs. The address is in eax, not the value.
>
>> static int *foo(void)
>> {
>> int x = 42;
>> return &x;
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> return *foo();
>> }
>
> However, this code seems to produce valid assembly with -O2. gcc just
> warns and fixes it up.
>
> Hannes
IIRC, the problem was I needed an lvalue and it seems that the *(&m) was
the way I was able to coerce gcc into producing it. That's not to say there
may be a better way however... ;-) [Btw, I picked up this technique in the
(original) per_cpu() macro.]
Note the lvalue isn't used for changing the cpumask value, but for sending it
to functions like set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to avoid pushing the 512 bytes of a
4096 cpus cpumask onto the stack. So it becomes &(*(&m))) ... ;-) But I
thought I checked the assembly for different config options and it looked ok.
Thanks,
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-08 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-08 8:16 Dangerous code in cpumask_of_cpu? Rusty Russell
2008-07-08 8:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 8:54 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 9:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 9:28 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-08 15:29 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2008-07-09 2:22 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-09 14:42 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-08 9:33 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-08 10:24 ` Andreas Schwab
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=487387DE.90602@sgi.com \
--to=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@saeurebad.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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