[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130107171910.GA19510@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:19:10 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
markus@...ppelsdorf.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/6] rcu: Silence compiler array
out-of-bounds false positive
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 09:16:02AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:50:02AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 09:09:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > It turns out that gcc 4.8 warns on array indexes being out of bounds
> > > unless it can prove otherwise. It gives this warning on some RCU
> > > initialization code. Because this is far from any fastpath, add
> > > an explicit check for array bounds and panic if so. This gives the
> > > compiler enough information to figure out that the array index is never
> > > out of bounds.
> > >
> > > However, if a similar false positive occurs on a fastpath, it will
> > > probably be necessary to tell the compiler to keep its array-index
> > > anxieties to itself. ;-)
> > >
> > > Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcutree.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > index d145796..e0d9815 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > > @@ -2938,6 +2938,10 @@ static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> > >
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_RCU_LVLS > ARRAY_SIZE(buf)); /* Fix buf[] init! */
> > >
> > > + /* Silence gcc 4.8 warning about array index out of range. */
> > > + if (rcu_num_lvls > RCU_NUM_LVLS)
> > > + panic("rcu_init_one: rcu_num_lvls overflow");
> >
> > Why not write this as BUG_ON(rcu_num_lvls > RCU_NUM_LVLS)? Given that
> > the condition in question can never happen, you don't really need an
> > explanatory message.
>
> Good point, will do!
Ah, wait, BUG_ON() sometimes compiles to nothingness:
#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG_ON
#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (condition) ; } while(0)
#endif
So I do need the explicit "if". :-(
Thanx, Paul
> > I do find it surprising, though, that the compiler can't figure this one
> > out, given that rcu_num_lvls gets initialized right before this in the
> > same file (and likely inlined into the same function). I wonder if it
> > thought some other code might change it unexpectedly, since rcu_num_lvls
> > doesn't get declared as static? Unfortunately, the loop macros in
> > rcutree.h make it difficult to make rcu_num_lvls static, but as far as I
> > can tell only one use of those macros ever gets expanded outside of
> > rcutree.c: the one in rcutree_trace.c. If you compile out tracing, and
> > declare rcu_num_lvls static, does the warning go away?
>
> I found it quite surprising also, hence the "array-index anxieties" above.
>
> I added Marcus on CC for his thoughts on this.
>
> Thanx, Paul
--
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