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  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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:34:43 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Anton Blanchard' <anton@...ba.org>,
        "behanw@...verseincode.com" <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
        "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:     "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: llist code relies on undefined behaviour, upsets llvm/clang

From: Anton Blanchard
> Sent: 15 January 2017 21:36
> I was debugging a hang on a ppc64le kernel built with clang, and it
> looks to be undefined behaviour with pointer wrapping in the llist code.
> 
> A test case is below. llist_for_each_entry() does container_of() on a
> NULL pointer, which wraps our pointer negative, then adds the same
> offset back in and expects to get back to NULL. Unfortunately clang
> decides that this can never be NULL and optimises it into an infinite
> loop.
...
> #define llist_for_each_entry(pos, node, member)                         \
>         for ((pos) = llist_entry((node), typeof(*(pos)), member);       \
>              &(pos)->member != NULL;                                    \
>              (pos) = llist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member))

Maybe the above could be rewritten as (untested):
		for ((pos) = NULL; (!(pos) ? (node) : ((pos)->member.next) || (pos) = 0) && \
			(((pos) = !(pos) ? llist_entry((node), typeof(*(pos)), member) \
					: llist_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)),1); )
Provided the compiler assumes that the loop body is never executed with 'pos == 0'
it should generate the same code.

	David

Powered by blists - more mailing lists