| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200515002919.GA30837@embeddedor>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 19:29:19 -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 05:09:23PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:05 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:46:05PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:04 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> > > <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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)?
> > >
> > > My guess would be that the lbr size is an architectural constant and
> > > so avoiding malloc/free in what could be a hot loop was desirable.
> > > As this is part of a larger patch set, is this the only place this
> > > problem has been encountered? Perhaps a macro could perform the
> >
> > Yep. I just built linux-next --which contains all the flexible-array
> > conversions-- with Clang --GCC doesn't catch this issue, not even GCC
> > 10-- and I don't see any other issue like this.
> >
> > I mean, I have run into these other two:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200505235205.GA18539@embeddedor/
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200508163826.GA768@embeddedor/
> >
> > but those are due to the erroneous application of the sizeof operator
> > to zero-length arrays.
> >
> > > complicated stack allocation I suggested. It may be nice to save
> > > cycles if code this pattern is widespread and the code hot.
> > >
> >
> > Apparently, this is the only instace of this sort of issue in the whole
> > codebase.
>
> Thanks for checking, I'd convert it to malloc/free but Intel really
> owns this code.
>
Go ahead and I can add that part to my patch and include a Co-developed-by
tag. :)
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists