linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] compiler.h, bug.h: Prevent double error messages with BUILD_BUG{,

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <506FB381.4030605@att.net>
Date:	Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:28:49 -0500
From:	Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@....net>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Pavel Pisa <pisa@....felk.cvut.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] compiler.h, bug.h: Prevent double error messages
 with BUILD_BUG{,_ON}

On 10/05/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:42:46PM -0500, danielfsantos@....net wrote:
>> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
>> @@ -296,6 +296,11 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect);
>>  #endif
>>  #ifndef __compiletime_error
>>  # define __compiletime_error(message)
>> +# define __compiletime_error_fallback(condition) \
>> +	 ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
>> +#endif
>> +#ifndef __compiletime_error_fallback
>> +# define __compiletime_error_fallback(condition) (void)(0)
>
> Might want to use do { } while (0) here, to force the use of a
> semicolon and avoid the use of __compiletime_error_fallback in an
> expression.
Sure!  But while we're here, we may want to consider a few other macros
in bug.h.  These two are intended to be used as an expression:

#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void *)sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))

They are using a different technique to generate the compile-time error,
perhaps because the negative sized array wasn't always working past gcc
4.4? Either way, perhaps these can become

#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) ({BUILD_BUG_ON(e); 0;})
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ({BUILD_BUG_ON(e); (void*)0;})

This would again give us our cute error message.  However, I don't know
when this style of expression began to be supported (I know it's a gcc
extension), but I'm guessing it's pre gcc 3.2 because it's used in
kernel.h.  Also:

#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n)            \
        BUILD_BUG_ON((n) == 0 || (((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0))

can become:

#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n)                         \
        BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((n) == 0 || (((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0), \
                         #n " not a power of two")

I think the only thing that would leave unfinished is the __OPTIMIZE__ check
in the BUILD_BUG_ON definition.  This is a throw-back to the days before
BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST (oops, that's still in another patch set).  Well, if
you look at version 1 of this patch set, you'll see that it has that check,
since __builtin_constant_p never returns one in an unoptimized build.
However, that's a bit more work because we will need to examine every use of
BUILD_BUG_ON and __builtin_constant_p.  I only found 2-3 last time I looked,
one of which was commented outwith the remark that it "breaks in funny
ways",
which we certainly already know about __builtin_constant_p.  Another was a
pretty complicated expression, but I'll have to look them up again.

Please let me know what you think.

Daniel
--
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/