[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202404191458.17308A48D4@keescook>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:06:39 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] Enable -Wshadow=local for kernel/sched
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:52:28AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 05:29:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 14:15, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking at -Wshadow=local again, and remembered this series. It
> > > sounded like things were close, but a tweak was needed. What would be
> > > next to get this working?
> >
> > So what is the solution to
> >
> > #define MAX(a,b) ({ \
> > typeof(a) __a = (a); \
> > typeof(b) __b = (b); \
> > __a > __b ? __a : __b; \
> > })
>
> #define __MAX(a, __a, b, __b) ({ \
> typeof(a) __a = (a); \
> typeof(b) __b = (b); \
> __a > __b ? __a : __b; \
> })
>
> #define MAX(a, b) __MAX(a, UNIQUE_ID(a), b, UNIQUE_ID(b))
Yup, this is what we've had for a long time now. See
include/linux/minmax.h
> At least, I think that was the plan. This was two years ago and I've
> mostly forgotten.
>
> > int test(int a, int b, int c)
> > {
> > return MAX(a, MAX(b,c));
> > }
> >
> > where -Wshadow=all causes insane warnings that are bogus garbage?
> >
> > Honestly, Willy's patch-series is a hack to avoid this kind of very
> > natural nested macro pattern.
> >
> > But it's a horrible hack, and it does it by making the code actively worse.
> >
> > Here's the deal: if we can't handle somethng like the above without
> > warning, -Wshadow isn't getting enabled.
> >
> > Because we don't write worse code because of bad warnings.
> >
> > IOW, what is the sane way to just say "this variable can shadow the
> > use site, and it's fine"?
> >
> > Without that kind of out, I don't think -Wshadow=local is workable.
This isn't a hill I want to die on, but it's just another case where
we've fought bugs more than once that would have stood out immediately
if we had -Wshadow=local enabled, but there is basically only 1 user. In
my bug-fighting calculus, it makes sense to deal with fixing the 1 user
so we can gain the coverage everywhere else.
But there are much worse bug sources, so if Willy's series isn't
workable, I'll drop this again for now. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists