linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] amdgpu/gmc : fix compile warning

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: <20181019085308.GY31561@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:53:08 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Peng Hao <peng.hao2@....com.cn>,
        "airlied@...ux.ie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        Martin Peres <martin.peres@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amdgpu/gmc : fix compile warning

On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 06:13:56PM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 08.10.2018 um 19:46 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:22:24PM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> >> Am 08.10.2018 um 17:57 schrieb Deucher, Alexander:
> >>>>>> One thing I found missing in the discussion was the reference to the
> >>>>>> C standard.
> >>>>>> The C99 standard states in section 6.7.8 (Initialization) clause 19:
> >>>>>> "... all
> >>>>>> subobjects that are not initialized explicitly shall be initialized
> >>>>>> implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration".
> >>>>>> Clause 21 makes further reference to partial initialization,
> >>>>>> suggesting the same. Various online resources, including the gcc
> >>>>>> documentation, all state the same. I don't find any reference to a
> >>>>>> partial initialization which would leave members of a structure
> >>>>>> undefined. It would be interesting for me to understand how and why
> >>>>>> this does not apply here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In this context, it is interesting that the other 48 instances of the
> >>>>>> { { 0 } } initialization in the same driver don't raise similar
> >>>>>> concerns, nor seemed to have caused any operational problems.
> >>>>> Feel free to provide patches to replace those with memset().
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not me. As I see it, the problem, if it exists, would be a violation of the C
> >>>> standard. I don't believe hacking around bad C compilers. I would rather
> >>>> blacklist such compilers.
> >> Well then you would need to blacklist basically all gcc variants of the
> >> last decade or so.
> >>
> >> Initializing only known members of structures is a perfectly valid
> >> optimization and well known issue when you then compare the structure
> >> with memcpy() or use the bytes for hashing or something similar.
> >>
> > Isn't that about padding ? That is a completely different issue.
> 
> Correct, yes. But that is the reason why I recommend using memset() for 
> zero initialization.
> 
> See we don't know the inner layout of the structure, could be another 
> structure or an union.
> 
> If it's a structure everything is fine because if you initialize one 
> structure member all other get their default type (whatever that means), 
> but if it's an union.....
> 
> Not sure if compilers still react allergic to that, but its the status 
> I've learned the hard way when the C99 standard came out and it still 
> seems like people are working around that so I recommend everybody to 
> stick with memset().

Went boom:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108490

Can we revert?

Also, can we properly igt this so that intel-gfx-ci could test this before
it's all fireworks?

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch