[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:26:06 +0000
From: James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, mka@...omium.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, groeck@...omium.org,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:59 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Here is another horrible work around that was needed to get clang to
> stop generating invalid code, beaec533fc27 ("llist: clang: introduce
> member_address_is_nonnull()") That one caused a lot of odd failures by
> users, I wonder what else is lurking in that same code pattern. It's a
> hard one to debug...
I would note that this issue is an entirely different issue from the
null-pointer-deref-is-undefined-behavior optimizations, even though it may
seem superficially similar. For _this_ issue, the behavior at question is
that the compiler assumes that objects are contiguous in memory, and thus
that "&struct_pointer->member_at_nonzero_offset != NULL" is always true. I
don't really see clang ever getting a flag to stop assuming that objects
are contiguous.
Note that clang does actually emit an on-by-default warning for a situation
analogous to this:
warning: comparison of address of 'p->sub' not equal to a null pointer is
always true [-Wtautological-pointer-compare]
if (&p->sub != NULL) {
~~~^~~ ~~~~
...but unfortunately that warning is suppressed when it occurs in a
macro-expansion, so the llist_for_each_entry error was silent.
(OTOH, I _do_ expect clang to eventually gain support for a flag to treat
NULL-pointer deref as a legal operation instead of UB. I'm not really sure
it makes sense for the linux kernel, but it's a useful feature for the
compiler to provide in any case, so why not...)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists