linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: rcupdate.h: Add missing parentheses around macro pointer dereference

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]

Date:   Wed, 3 May 2023 18:06:40 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: rcupdate.h: Add missing parentheses around
 macro pointer dereference

On Wed,  3 May 2023 16:32:36 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> linux/rcupdate.h macros use the *p parameter without parentheses, e.g.:
> 
>   typeof(*p)
> 
> rather than
> 
>   typeof(*(p))
> 
> The following test-case shows how it can generate confusion due to C
> operator precedence being reversed compared to the expectations:
> 
>     #define m(p) \
>     do { \
>             __typeof__(*p) v = 0; \
>     } while (0)
> 
>     void fct(unsigned long long *p1)
>     {
>             m(p1 + 1);      /* works */
>             m(1 + p1);      /* broken */
>     }
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
> Cc: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/rcupdate.h | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index dcd2cf1e8326..1565012fa47f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -430,16 +430,16 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { }
>  
>  #ifdef __CHECKER__
>  #define rcu_check_sparse(p, space) \
> -	((void)(((typeof(*p) space *)p) == p))
> +	((void)(((typeof(*(p)) space *)p) == p))

Hmm, should we have that be:
	((void)(((typeof(*(p)) space *)(p)) == (p)))

In case of the 1 + p1, which would end up as:

	((void)(((typeof(*(1 + p1)) __rcu *)1 + p1 == 1 + p1;

I don't know how that __rcu get's passed around via the + statement there,
so it may be fine. May not even make sense to have that. But I like to
error on more parenthesis. ;-)

The rest looks fine.

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

-- Steve



>  #else /* #ifdef __CHECKER__ */
>  #define rcu_check_sparse(p, space)
>  #endif /* #else #ifdef __CHECKER__ */
>  
>  #define __unrcu_pointer(p, local)					\
>  ({									\
> -	typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)(p);			\
> +	typeof(*(p)) *local = (typeof(*(p)) *__force)(p);		\
>  	rcu_check_sparse(p, __rcu);					\
> -	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); 			\
> +	((typeof(*(p)) __force __kernel *)(local));			\
>  })
>  /**
>   * unrcu_pointer - mark a pointer as not being RCU protected
> @@ -452,29 +452,29 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { }
>  
>  #define __rcu_access_pointer(p, local, space) \
>  ({ \
> -	typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> +	typeof(*(p)) *local = (typeof(*(p)) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
>  	rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> -	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> +	((typeof(*(p)) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
>  })
>  #define __rcu_dereference_check(p, local, c, space) \
>  ({ \
>  	/* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> -	typeof(*p) *local = (typeof(*p) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
> +	typeof(*(p)) *local = (typeof(*(p)) *__force)READ_ONCE(p); \
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"); \
>  	rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> -	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> +	((typeof(*(p)) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
>  })
>  #define __rcu_dereference_protected(p, local, c, space) \
>  ({ \
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!(c), "suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage"); \
>  	rcu_check_sparse(p, space); \
> -	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(p)); \
> +	((typeof(*(p)) __force __kernel *)(p)); \
>  })
>  #define __rcu_dereference_raw(p, local) \
>  ({ \
>  	/* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
>  	typeof(p) local = READ_ONCE(p); \
> -	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
> +	((typeof(*(p)) __force __kernel *)(local)); \
>  })
>  #define rcu_dereference_raw(p) __rcu_dereference_raw(p, __UNIQUE_ID(rcu))
>