[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220324104521.GF12805@kadam>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:45:22 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: kbuild@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kbuild] [djwong-xfs:djwong-wtf 349/351]
fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c:1372 xfs_map_free_extent() warn: missing error code
'error'
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 09:38:27AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 08:47:26AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:59:08PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:33:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1365
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1366 error = xfs_alloc_find_freesp(tp, pag, cursor, end_agbno, &len);
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1367 if (error)
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1368 goto out_cancel;
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1369
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1370 /* Bail out if the cursor is beyond what we asked for. */
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 1371 if (*cursor >= end_agbno)
> > > > b82670045aab66 Darrick J. Wong 2022-01-06 @1372 goto out_cancel;
> > > >
> > > > This looks like it should have an error = -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Nope. If xfs_alloc_find_freesp moves @cursor goes beyond end_agbno, we
> > > want to exit early so that the xfs_map_free_extent caller will return to
> > > userspace.
> > >
> > > --D
> >
> > I'm generally pretty happy with this static checker rule. Returning
> > success on a failure path almost always results if something bad like a
> > NULL deref or a use after free. But false positives are a real risk
> > because it's tempting to add an error code to this and introduce a bug.
> >
> > Smatch will not print the warning if error is set within 4 lines of the
> > goto.
> > error = 0;
> > if (*cursor >= end_agbno)
> > goto out_cancel;
>
> The trouble is, if I do that:
>
> error = xfs_alloc_find_freesp(...);
> if (error)
> goto out_cancel;
>
> error = 0;
> if (*cursor >= end_agbno)
> goto out_cancel;
>
> then I'll get patch reviewers and/or tools complaining about setting
> error to zero unnecessarily.
Currently nothing would complain. What causes complaints if the
assignments are not used. Places where we assign a value and then
immediately re-assign over it.
It would only take a few minutes to write a checker rule which would
complain about assigning "ret = 0;" if we already know that foo was
zero, but hopefully no one will write it.
The closest is that Christophe JAILLET has a script to remove
duplicative memset()s to zero.
> Either way we end up with a lot of code
> golf for something the compiler will probably remove for us.
>
> Question: Can sparse detect that the if() test involves a comparison
> between a non-pointer function argument and a dereferenced pointer
> argument? Would that be sufficient to detect functions that advance a
> cursor passed in by the caller and return early when the cursor moves
> outside of a range also specified by the caller?
This is a Smatch test (not Sparse). Smatch doesn't have code to
detect/describe that right now... I'm not sure if the heuristic is very
useful. I will look at future false positives and see if it applies.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists