From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Sachin P Sant <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:07 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A0A2E57.7080709@ct.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090512155637.19380.9114.sendpatchset@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com>
Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:16 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:16:14PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Subrata,
>>
>>> With gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090429 (prerelease), i get the following build warning:
>> Patch looks good (you can add a
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>)
>> But I don't maintain this code anymore. Please resend to x86@kernel.org
>> cc linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org for merge.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Andi
>
>
> With gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 20090429 (prerelease), i get the following build warning:
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/signal.o
> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c: In function ‘sys_sigreturn’:
> arch/x86/kernel/signal.c:573: warning: ‘set.sig[1]’ may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> On investigation i found that this is because of the evaluation
> precedence of the expression below:
>
> 569 unsigned long sys_sigreturn(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 570 {
> 571 struct sigframe __user *frame;
> 572 unsigned long ax;
> 573 sigset_t set;
> 574
> 575 frame = (struct sigframe __user *)(regs->sp - 8);
> 576
> 577 if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> 578 goto badframe;
> 579 if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
> 580 && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> 581 sizeof(frame->extramask))))
>
> The initialization for set.sig[1] may not occur if
> __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask)
> evalutes to true. So, the compiler is complaining.
>
> I have devised a small patch for this which wanes away this warning
> without changing the conditional evaluation criteria. Let me know if
> you like this patch.
>
> 582 goto badframe;
> 583
> 584 sigdelsetmask(&set, ~_BLOCKABLE);
> 585 spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> 586 current->blocked = set;
> 587 recalc_sigpending();
> 588 spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> 589
> 590 if (restore_sigcontext(regs, &frame->sc, &ax))
> 591 goto badframe;
> 592 return ax;
> 593
> 594 badframe:
> 595 signal_fault(regs, frame, "sigreturn");
> 596
> 597 return 0;
> 598 }
>
> Signed-Off-By: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> To: <x86@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Sachin P Sant <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> ---
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-12 10:59:24.000000000 +0530
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-12 16:57:32.000000000 +0530
> @@ -576,9 +576,10 @@ unsigned long sys_sigreturn(struct pt_re
>
> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> goto badframe;
> - if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
> - && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> - sizeof(frame->extramask))))
> +
> + if ( (__copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> + sizeof(frame->extramask)) && _NSIG_WORDS > 1) ||
> + __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask))
> goto badframe;
I'm not sure why this eliminates that warning.
set.sig[0] may not be initialized too, if __copy_from_user() failed.
I don't have enough time to look at this right now, sorry.
Another question, __copy_from_user() will be called even if
_NSIG_WORDS is less than 2, perhaps it never occurs.
I think, to check _NSIG_WORDS > 1 before calling __copy_from_user()
is better.
Thanks,
Hiroshi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-13 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-12 15:56 [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c Subrata Modak
2009-05-13 2:20 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto [this message]
2009-05-13 9:06 ` Subrata Modak
2009-05-13 13:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-13 20:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 0:24 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-14 6:30 Subrata Modak
2009-05-14 7:38 ` [PATCH] " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-14 9:12 Subrata Modak
2009-05-15 2:57 ` [PATCH] " Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-15 3:32 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-15 10:16 ` Subrata Modak
2009-05-18 3:36 ` Hiroshi Shimamoto
2009-05-18 6:38 ` Subrata Modak
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=4A0A2E57.7080709@ct.jp.nec.com \
--to=h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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