linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bpf: force inc_active()/dec

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: <CAADnVQ+p4wpd=tKJAiwB34O1y5vv4mibtkt9D-F7sG=rQapcew@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:00:11 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: force inc_active()/dec_active() to be inline functions

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:32 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> >> If so, why can't we improve the compiler ?
> >
> > Agree.
> > Sounds like a compiler bug.
>
> I don't know what you might want to change in the compiler
> to avoid this. Compilers are free to decide which functions to
> inline in the absence of noinline or always_inline flags.

Clearly a compiler bug.
Compilers should not produce false positive warnings regardless
how inlining went and optimizations performed.


> One difference between gcc and clang is that gcc tries to
> be smart about warnings by using information from inlining
> to produce better warnings, while clang never uses information
> across function boundaries for generated warnings, so it won't
> find this one, but also would ignore an unconditional use
> of the uninitialized variable.
>
> >> If we have to change the kernel, what about the change below?
> >
> > To workaround the compiler bug we can simply init flag=0 to silence
> > the warn, but even that is silly. Passing flag=0 into irqrestore is buggy.
>
> Maybe inc_active() could return the flags instead of modifying
> the stack variable? that would also result in slightly better
> code when it's not inlined.

Which gcc are we talking about here that is so buggy?