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: <20160518180153.GA3528@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 11:01:53 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, dennis.chen@....com,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, steve.capper@....com,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> 2016-05-16 19:48 GMT+03:00 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
> 
> >  /*
> > + * Iterate over all possible CPUs in a leaf RCU node.
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu(rnp, cpu) \
> > +       for ((cpu) = rnp->grplo; \
> > +            cpu <= rnp->grphi; \
> > +            cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask))
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Iterate over all possible CPUs in a leaf RCU node, at each step providing a
> > + * bit for comparison against rcu_node bitmasks.
> > + */
> > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu_bit(rnp, cpu, bit) \
> > +       for ((cpu) = rnp->grplo, (bit) = 1; \
> > +            cpu <= rnp->grphi; \
> > +            cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask), \
> > +                  (bit) = 1UL << (cpu - rnp->grplo))
> > +
> 
> [    0.163652] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in ../kernel/rcu/tree.c:2912:3
> [    0.164000] shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long
> unsigned int'

Ah, dead value, but can happen nevertheless.  One fix is to prevent the
assignment to bit when cpu > rnp->grphi.

Any ideas for a better fix?  And isn't there some combination of
signedness that makes shifting all the bits out of the value defined
to zero?  Or is that only for right shifts?

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ