linux-kernel - Re: Buiild error in i915/xe (was: [PATCH next 4/7] minmax.h: Use BUILD_BUG_ON

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: <20250118221123.5bb65e64@pumpkin>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:11:23 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, David Laight
 <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe
 <axboe@...nel.dk>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@...radead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy
 Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Carpenter
 <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
 "pedro.falcato@...il.com" <pedro.falcato@...il.com>, Mateusz Guzik
 <mjguzik@...il.com>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Lorenzo
 Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona
 Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Buiild error in i915/xe (was: [PATCH next 4/7] minmax.h: Use
 BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG() for the lo < hi test in clamp())

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:21:39 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 at 09:49, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > No idea why the compiler would know that the values are invalid.  
> 
> It's not that the compiler knows tat they are invalid, but I bet what
> happens is in scale() (and possibly other places that do similar
> checks), which does this:
> 
>         WARN_ON(source_min > source_max);
>         ...
>         source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
> 
> and the compiler notices that the ordering comparison in the first
> WARN_ON() is the same as the one in clamp(), so it basically converts
> the logic to
> 
>         if (source_min > source_max) {
>                 WARN(..);
>                 /* Do the clamp() knowing that source_min > source_max */
>                 source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>         } else {
>                 /* Do the clamp knowing that source_min <= source_max */
>                 source_val = clamp(source_val, source_min, source_max);
>         }
> 
> (obviously I dropped the other WARN_ON in the conversion, it wasn't
> relevant for this case).
> 
> And now that first clamp() case is done with source_min > source_max,
> and it triggers that build error because that's invalid.
> 
> So the condition is not statically true in the *source* code, but in
> the "I have moved code around to combine tests" case it now *is*
> statically true as far as the compiler is concerned.

Well spotted :-)

One option would be to move the WARN_ON() below the clamp() and
add an OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAR(source_max) between them.

Or do something more sensible than the WARN().
Perhaps return target_min on any such errors?

	David

> 
>               Linus
>