| 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: <CACG_h5oAAx7QbRGRUx=U__NO0g_K_bA2Y5emibsr-MwJDqBcAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 03:23:27 +0530
From: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@...il.com>
To: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] bitops: Introduce the the for_each_set_clump macro
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:01 AM William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 01:32:44AM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:08 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:38:18PM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:15 PM kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > 579 static inline unsigned long bitmap_get_value(const unsigned long *map,
> > > > > 580 unsigned long start,
> > > > > 581 unsigned long nbits)
> > > > > 582 {
> > > > > 583 const size_t index = BIT_WORD(start);
> > > > > 584 const unsigned long offset = start % BITS_PER_LONG;
> > > > > 585 const unsigned long ceiling = roundup(start + 1, BITS_PER_LONG);
> > > > > 586 const unsigned long space = ceiling - start;
> > > > > 587 unsigned long value_low, value_high;
> > > > > 588
> > > > > 589 if (space >= nbits)
> > > > > > 590 return (map[index] >> offset) & GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0);
> > > > > 591 else {
> > > > > 592 value_low = map[index] & BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
> > > > > 593 value_high = map[index + 1] & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(start + nbits);
> > > > > 594 return (value_low >> offset) | (value_high << space);
> > > > > 595 }
> > > > > 596 }
> > >
> > > > Regarding the above compilation warnings. All the warnings are because
> > > > of GENMASK usage in my patch.
> > > > The warnings are coming because of sanity checks present for 'GENMASK'
> > > > macro in include/linux/bits.h.
> > > >
> > > > Taking the example statement (in my patch) where compilation warning
> > > > is getting reported:
> > > > return (map[index] >> offset) & GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0);
> > > >
> > > > 'nbits' is of type 'unsigned long'.
> > > > In above, the sanity check is comparing '0' with unsigned value. And
> > > > unsigned value can't be less than '0' ever, hence the warning.
> > > > But this warning will occur whenever there will be '0' as one of the
> > > > 'argument' and an unsigned variable as another 'argument' for GENMASK.
> > > >
> > > > This warning is getting cleared if I cast the 'nbits' to 'long'.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if I should submit a next patch with the casts applied.
> > > > What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > Proper fix is to fix GENMASK(), but allowed workaround is to use
> > > (BIT(nbits) - 1)
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > --
> > > With Best Regards,
> > > Andy Shevchenko
> > >
> >
> > Hi Andy. Thank You for your comment.
> >
> > When I used BIT macro (earlier), I had faced a problem. I want to tell
> > you about that.
> >
> > Inside functions 'bitmap_set_value' and 'bitmap_get_value' when nbits (or
> > clump size) is BITS_PER_LONG, unexpected calculation happens.
> >
> > Explanation:
> > Actually when nbits (clump size) is 64 (BITS_PER_LONG is 64 on my computer),
> > (BIT(nbits) - 1)
> > gives a value of zero and when this zero is ANDed with any value, it
> > makes it full zero. This is unexpected and incorrect calculation happening.
> >
> > What actually happens is in the macro expansion of BIT(64), that is 1
> > << 64, the '1' overflows from leftmost bit position (most significant
> > bit) and re-enters at the rightmost bit position (least significant
> > bit), therefore 1 << 64 becomes '0x1', and when another '1' is
> > subtracted from this, the final result becomes 0.
> >
> > Since this macro is being used in both bitmap_get_value and
> > bitmap_set_value functions, it will give unexpected results when nbits or clump
> > size is BITS_PER_LONG (32 or 64 depending on arch).
> >
> > William also knows about this issue:
> >
> > "This is undefined behavior in the C standard (section 6.5.7 in the N1124)"
> >
> > Andy, William,
> > Let me know what do you think ?
> >
> > Regards
> > Syed Nayyar Waris
>
> We can't use BIT here because nbits could be equal to BITS_PER_LONG in
> some cases. Casting to long should be fine because the nbits will never
> be greater than BITS_PER_LONG, so long should be safe to use.
>
> However, I agree with Andy that the proper solution is to fix GENMASK so
> that this warning does not come up. What's the actual line of code in
> the GENMASK macro that is throwing this warning? I'd like to understand
> better the logic of this sanity check.
>
> William Breathitt Gray
Here is the code snippet:
#define GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) \
(BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__builtin_choose_expr( \
__builtin_constant_p((l) > (h)), (l) > (h), 0)))
Above you can see the comparisons are being done in the last line.
And because of these comparisons, those compilation warnings are generated.
For full code related to GENMASK macro:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git/tree/include/linux/bits.h
Yes I too agree, I can work on GENMASK.
Regards
Syed Nayyar Waris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists