From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <smatch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:60758 "EHLO
        userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1729240AbfLEOgN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;smatch@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:36:13 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc
 : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type :
 in-reply-to; s=corp-2019-08-05;
 bh=vEv/HeEVYet3XH/nginyF8cJah+61Gog+xzZ2SPUslE=;
 b=Nj8jzqDMK1ZNZT22b9MFmYmC6+I0Gnlji9yCYmIqoe3Ac2jxhKblU9EZnN6Jxu+p5qNm
 4JIDyVkDVgJrIU3Li3wbpwvda2wjtf+4kQPY+ysZB6bVNe0vlDuSPtNfLiDKMYrS98AW
 peyheF41ZovksdyLXbPgIj4w+Gr6Y7jq06NjawE62T7DL0buzWrcuI801jV9YG81Co9I
 IPgEvwsZfJUx9iI+KEwvOH60BJUD+wXDlDpJeWZsm91ny6ZEdZ2oSCe5A3MoIBkwcNQd
 60efLrM9h2yEkX+hPC+ATO01ou6rywIpLHFygDKeyBvicjJzLyr09e36s0zt6dTjT3d8 +g== 
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:35:54 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/7] arm64: add check for comparison against tagged
 address
Message-ID: <20191205143554.GQ1787@kadam>
References: <20191007153545.23231-1-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <20191007153545.23231-4-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <20191007154923.GD42880@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20191205132703.GO1787@kadam>
 <20191205142842.GP1787@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191205142842.GP1787@kadam>
Sender: smatch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <smatch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, smatch@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:28:42PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 04:27:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > We hardcode symbols of interest that we consider to be untagged addresses. This
> > > provides good coverage but isn't very flexible. A better approach would be to
> > > annotate the kernel with address space tags, such as is the case for __user,
> > > __percpu, etc. Thus variables, struct members and function parameters could be
> > > annotated to indicate that they contain untagged addresses. Unfortunately:
> > > 
> > >  - At present it's not possible to determine a struct member's address space
> > >    from Smatch
> > 
> > I'm not sure how to get the address space for anything not just struct
> > members.  :(  I will investigate.
> 
> I was using the wrong attribute in my testing.  In the kernel __user is
> 
> #define __user         __attribute__((noderef, address_space(1)))
> 

My guess is that __untagged isn't something that Sparse knows about?
Sparse has "noderef" as a keyword in the parse.c and has a handler for
it.

regards,
dan carpenter