linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit

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:	Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:37:30 -0700 (MST)
From:	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
cc:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NVMe: silence GCC warning on 32 bit

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 10:02 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> And these popped up in v3.14-rc1 on 32 bit x86. This patch makes these
> warnings go away. Compile tested only (on 32 and 64 bit x86).
>
> Review is appreciated, because the code I'm touching here is far from
> obvious to me.
> -------->8--------
> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>

> These are false positives. A bit of staring at the code reveals that
> "struct bio_vec bvprv" and "int first" operate in lockstep: if first is
> 1 bvprv isn't yet initialized and if first is 0 bvprv will be
> initialized. But if we convert bvprv to a pointer and initialize it to
> NULL we can do away with first. And it turns out the warning is gone if
> we do that. So that appears to be enough to help GCC understand the
> flow of this code.

That's pretty much how it was done before the bio_vec iterators were
merged, but I think there's a problem with this approach for this patch
(see below).

>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
> ---
> drivers/block/nvme-core.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> index 51824d1..f9fb28b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
> @@ -495,11 +495,10 @@ static int nvme_split_and_submit(struct bio *bio, struct nvme_queue *nvmeq,
> static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> 		struct bio *bio, enum dma_data_direction dma_dir, int psegs)
> {
> -	struct bio_vec bvec, bvprv;
> +	struct bio_vec bvec, *bvprv = NULL;
> 	struct bvec_iter iter;
> 	struct scatterlist *sg = NULL;
> 	int length = 0, nsegs = 0, split_len = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
> -	int first = 1;
>
> 	if (nvmeq->dev->stripe_size)
> 		split_len = nvmeq->dev->stripe_size -
> @@ -508,10 +507,10 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
>
> 	sg_init_table(iod->sg, psegs);
> 	bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> -		if (!first && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec)) {
> +		if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {
> 			sg->length += bvec.bv_len;
> 		} else {
> -			if (!first && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(&bvprv, &bvec))
> +			if (bvprv && BIOVEC_NOT_VIRT_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec))
> 				return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq,
> 							     length);
>
> @@ -524,8 +523,7 @@ static int nvme_map_bio(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, struct nvme_iod *iod,
> 		if (split_len - length < bvec.bv_len)
> 			return nvme_split_and_submit(bio, nvmeq, split_len);
> 		length += bvec.bv_len;
> -		bvprv = bvec;
> -		first = 0;
> +		bvprv = &bvec;

The address of bvec doesn't change, so bvprv is still going to point
to bvec on the next iteration instead of the previous bio_vec like we
want. When the next iteration gets to this comparison:

> +		if (bvprv && BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(bvprv, &bvec)) {

both bio_vec's have the same address.

> 	}
> 	iod->nents = nsegs;
> 	sg_mark_end(sg);
> -- 
> 1.8.5.3
--
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/