[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0cd6862e-8037-40b3-9fde-b7f10d66e31c@suswa.mountain>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:26:24 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>, error27@...il.com,
gost.dev@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nvme: Update type from size_t to u16 for
opts->queue_size
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:59:56PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> This fixes the smatch warning, "nvme_loop_create_ctrl() warn:
> 'opts->queue_size - 1' 18446744073709551615 can't fit into 65535
> 'ctrl->ctrl.sqsize'"
> We don't need size_t for queue_size, u16 should serve the purpose,
> as max size is limited to NVMF_DEF_QUEUE_SIZE(1024).
>
> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
Huh... I'm sorry I wasn't necessarily aware that I had published this
Smatch warning. I feel like it has a high rate of false positives.
Generally with Smatch warnings, I'm not going to try silence every
false positive. And I had one complaint recently that I was too focused
on silencing false positives instead of discovering new bugs...
The other thing about static analysis is that static checker developers
want 0% false positives and kernel developers want 100% false positives.
I'm a kernel developer so in code that I have looked at the rate of
false positives is very close to 100%. Only new code has valid
warnings.
Here is what this code looks like:
drivers/nvme/target/loop.c
573 if (opts->queue_size > ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd) {
574 /* warn if maxcmd is lower than queue_size */
575 dev_warn(ctrl->ctrl.device,
576 "queue_size %zu > ctrl maxcmd %u, clamping down\n",
577 opts->queue_size, ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd);
578 opts->queue_size = ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd;
579 }
580 ctrl->ctrl.sqsize = opts->queue_size - 1;
Smatch thinks that opts->queue_size is a value that comes from the user
in the 16-47 range. But the bug is that Smatch thinks that
ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd is zero. 16 is greater than zero so we do the
opts->queue_size = ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd; assignment. Then zero minus one
is ULONG_MAX so that's a very high number.
Smatch is just wrong in this case. Let me try figure out what went
wrong. The ctrl->ctrl.maxcmd = 0 comes from:
ctrl = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctrl), GFP_KERNEL);
It's supposed to get set to unknown in nvme_loop_configure_admin_queue().
The database has the correct data.
$ smdb.py return_states nvme_loop_configure_admin_queue | grep maxcmd
drivers/nvme/target/loop.c | nvme_loop_configure_admin_queue | 229 | 0| PARAM_SET | 0 | $->ctrl.maxcmd | 0-u16max |
drivers/nvme/target/loop.c | nvme_loop_configure_admin_queue | 231 | s32min-(-1),1-s32max| PARAM_ADD | 0 | $->ctrl.maxcmd | 0-u16max |
But the issue is that Smatch thinks that nvme_loop_configure_admin_queue()
always fails with -12. The reason for that is because Smatch thinks
that ctrl->ctrl.ops is NULL but the function can only succeed when it's
non-NULL.
The ctrl->ops assignment happens in nvme_init_ctrl() and it should have
been easy to track. I am not sure what went wrong there. I'll take a
look at that and fix it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists