[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87myksn587.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:35:20 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Dangerous code in cpumask_of_cpu?
Hi,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.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 :)
But then, this code should probably just evaluate to m without this
obscure *(&m) construct.
Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists