linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH perf/core] perf intel-pt: Fix clang build failure in intel_pt_synth_pebs

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: <20200514220934.GT4897@embeddedor>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 17:09:34 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core] perf intel-pt: Fix clang build failure in
 intel_pt_synth_pebs_sample

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:06:48PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:01 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:10:30AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Wed, May 13, 2020 at 06:47:38PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva escreveu:
> > > > Fix the following build failure generated with command
> > > > $ make CC=clang HOSTCC=clang -C tools/ perf:
> > > >
> > > > util/intel-pt.c:1802:24: error: field 'br_stack' with variable sized type 'struct branch_stack' not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
> > > >                         struct branch_stack br_stack;
> > > >                                             ^
> > > > 1 error generated.
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by reordering the members of struct br.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I noticed that as far back as with ubuntu 16.04's clang:
> > >
> > > clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4 (tags/RELEASE_380/final)
> > >
> > > util/intel-pt.c:1802:24: error: field 'br_stack' with variable sized type 'struct branch_stack' not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU
> > >       extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
> > >                         struct branch_stack br_stack;
> > >                                             ^
> > > 1 error generated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will fold this with the bug introducing the problem to avoid bisection
> > > problems.
> > >
> >
> > I agree. Also, the commit hash of the "Fixes" tag only applies to the
> > perf/core branch and, I guess that might create confusion.
> 
> 
> So while this fixes the warning I believe it breaks the intent of the code.
> 
> tools/perf/util/branch.h:
> struct branch_stack {
>        u64                     nr;
>        u64                     hw_idx;
>        struct branch_entry     entries[];
> };
> 
> tools/perf/util/intel-pt.c:
>                struct {
>                        struct branch_stack br_stack;
>                        struct branch_entry entries[LBRS_MAX];
>                } br;
> 
> The array in br is trying to extend branch_stack's entries array. You
> might have to do something like:
> 
> alignas(alignof(branch_stack)) char storage[sizeof(branch_stack) +
> sizeof(branch_entry) * LBRS_MAX];
> struct branch_stack *br = &storage;
> 
> malloc/free may be nicer on the eyeballs.
> 

Yep, I'd go for zalloc/free. There are a couple of places where dynamic
memory is being allocated for struct branch_stack:

tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c-256-   if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch) {
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c:257:           size_t sz = sizeof(struct branch_stack);
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c-258-
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c-259-           sz += etm->synth_opts.last_branch_sz *
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c-260-                 sizeof(struct branch_entry);
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c-261-           tidq->last_branch = zalloc(sz);

tools/perf/util/thread-stack.c-148-     if (br_stack_sz) {
tools/perf/util/thread-stack.c:149:             size_t sz = sizeof(struct branch_stack);
tools/perf/util/thread-stack.c-150-
tools/perf/util/thread-stack.c-151-             sz += br_stack_sz * sizeof(struct branch_entry);
tools/perf/util/thread-stack.c-152-             ts->br_stack_rb = zalloc(sz);

there is even function intel_pt_alloc_br_stack().

Just out of curiosity, why the need of such a hack in this case (the
on-stack extension of branch_stack's entries array)?

Thanks
--
Gustavo