netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next v4 1/5] net: sched: Micro-optimize egress handling

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]

Date:   Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:46:05 +0100
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Laura Garcia Liebana <nevola@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next v4 1/5] net: sched: Micro-optimize egress handling

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 07:26:24PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:47:01 +0100 Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > sch_handle_egress() returns either the skb or NULL to signal to its
> > caller __dev_queue_xmit() whether a packet should continue to be
> > processed.
> > 
> > The skb is always non-NULL, otherwise __dev_queue_xmit() would hit a
> > NULL pointer deref right at its top.
> > 
> > But the compiler doesn't know that.  So if sch_handle_egress() signals
> > success by returning the skb, the "if (!skb) goto out;" statement
> > results in a gratuitous NULL pointer check in the Assembler output.
> 
> Which exact compiler are we talking about it? Did you report this?
> As Eric pointed the compiler should be able to figure this out quite
> easily.

I tested with gcc 8, 9, 10.

No need to report as it's the expected behavior with
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, whose motivation appears
questionable though (per my preceding e-mail).

Thanks,

Lukas