linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking fix

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]
Date:	Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:37:17 +0100
From:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking fix

op 27-10-13 20:23, Linus Torvalds schreef:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com> wrote:
>> op 27-10-13 18:28, Linus Torvalds schreef:
>>> That expression is largely equivalent to
>>> "__builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx)" (because iff ww_ctx is constant, then
>>> the comparison to NULL is constant), which is actually much easier to
>>> read, while carrying a totally different semantic meaning. Making
>>> things worse, the comparison to NULL *may* be marked constant under
>>> some very random situations (ie the compiler could turn a "taking an
>>> address of a variable is never NULL" kind of knowledge and combining
>>> it with other knowledge, and turn a complicated "ctx" expression into
>>> a "I know this cannot be NULL" thing, and thus the "== NULL" is a
>>> constant, even though ctx itself is some dynamic calculation).
>>>
>>> Whoever wrote the original should be shot. And this commit shouldn't
>>> have been marked as being somehow about gcc-version dependence, but
>>> about removing completely crap code.
>>>
>> Unfortunately gcc disagreed there, which was another compiler bug.
> Stop this idiotic "blame gcc bug" crap. Which part of my explanation
> for why it was *NOT* a compiler bug did you not understand?
>
>> __builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx) was NOT equal to __builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx == NULL), iirc.
> See my "largely equivalent" comment, with the *EXTRA* logic that gcc
> may actually find cases where the comparison is a constant even if the
> ww_ctx thing itself isn't a constant.
Sure in the theoretical case it's possible.
>>  __builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx == NULL) is equal to __builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx != NULL), but
>> the former is more readable, since it shows we expect ww_ctx to be null.
> Stop the f*cking around already! The  whole "we expect ww_ctx to be
> null" thing shows that YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TEST
> ACTUALLY IS!
>
> The expression
>
>    __builtin_constant_p(ww_ctx == NULL)
>
> has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether ww_ctx is NULL or not!
> Christ, can you really not understand that?
I'm fully aware, I just think the compiler cannot know that the address is always non-null for a generic function that takes an argument and isn't inlined.

> For example, ww_ctx could be "&static_variable", and the compiler can
> - and some compiles _will_ - say that ww_ctx clearly cannot be NULL,
> so "ww_ctx == NULL" is 0, which is a constant, so the
> __builtin_constant_p() expression returns true. See? That expression
> has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether you passed in NULL or not.
> NOTHING.
but __ww_mutex_lock isn't inlined..
> That __builtin_constant_p() tests whether the comparison is
> *CONSTANT*. And "0" is just as much a constant as "1" is. Really. So
> the whole f*cking expression is total and utter crap, because it is
> entirely and utterly senseless. It lacks all meaning. It's not
> actually testing for NULL at all. Never was, never will.
>
> The *ONLY* thing it is testing for is "how much can the compiler
> optimize this", and as such the *ONLY* thing it tests for is compiler
> differences.
>
> Really. Seriously. If you start blaming the compiler for different
> compilers giving different results, the only thing *that* shows is
> that you didn't understand the expression to begin with.
>
>> But yeah I guess it was too broken in gcc after all, so that's why it had to be killed altogether.
> NO NO NO NO. No a f*cking thousand times. It's not "too broken in
> gcc". It's too broken in the source code, and the fact that you don't
> even understand that is sad. You wrote the code, and you seem to be
> unable to admit that *your* code was buggy.
>
> It's not a compiler bug. It's your bug. Stand up like a man, instead
> of trying to flail around and blame anything else but yourself.
>
> So guys, get your act together, and stop blaming the compiler already.
I never denied my original code didn't contain bugs, which is why I wrote that fix. I just don't believe gcc
will ever be smart enough to determine that ww_ctx is a non-null argument in all calls to __ww_mutex_lock,
and then determine for that reason ww_ctx != NULL would be an invariant.

I would love for a compiler to become that smart though, but I do not think it's likely.

But hey it was a bug, my code was buggy and I helped by suggesting how to write the correct fix.

~Maarten

--
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/