linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 05/13] list.h: Fix parentheses around macro pointer parameter use

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: <6971bfd0-b200-6cb8-7cd8-9973b72ef9ba@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 May 2023 09:46:40 -0400
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/13] list.h: Fix parentheses around macro pointer
 parameter use

On 2023-05-08 08:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:05:19PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Add missing parentheses around use of macro argument "pos" in those
>> patterns to ensure operator precedence behaves as expected:
>>
>> - typeof(*pos)
>> - pos->member
>> - "x = y" is changed for "x = (y)", because "y" can be an expression
>>    containing a comma if it is the result of the expansion of a macro such
>>    as #define eval(...) __VA_ARGS__, which would cause unexpected operator
>>    precedence. This use-case is far-fetched, but we have to choose one
>>    way or the other (with or without parentheses) for consistency,
>> - x && y is changed for (x) && (y).
>>
>> Remove useless parentheses around use of macro parameter (head) in the
>> following pattern:
>>
>> - list_is_head(pos, (head))
>>
>> Because comma is the lowest priority operator already, so the extra pair
>> of parentheses is redundant.
> 
> But strictly speaking it might be something like
> 
> 	list_...(..., (a, b))
> 
> where (a, b) is the head. No?

The following case still works after removing the extra parentheses 
around "head" because the parentheses are present where the macro is used:

LIST_HEAD(testlist);

int f2(void)
{
         return 1;
}

void f(void)
{
    struct list_head *pos;

    list_for_each(pos, (f2(), &testlist)) {
            //...
    }
}

The only use I found that would break is as follows:

LIST_HEAD(testlist);

int f2(void)
{
         return 1;
}

#define eval(...)       __VA_ARGS__

void f(void)
{
    struct list_head *pos;

    list_for_each(pos, eval(f2(), &testlist)) {
            //...
    }
}

Because "eval()" will evaluate "f(), &testlist" with comma and all, 
without enclosing parentheses.

So the question is: do we want to support this kind-of-odd macro 
evaluation, considering that it requires adding parentheses around 
pretty much all macro parameters when used as expressions between commas?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com