[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XEN RFC] x86/uaccess: remove __{put,get}_user_bad()


  • To: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:41:47 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>, consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:41:51 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>>> Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
>>>> since they have no definition.
>>>> Replace their uses with a break statement to address violations of
>>>> MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional `break' statement shall
>>>> terminate every switch-clause").
>>>> No functional change.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Several violations of Rule 16.3 come from uses of macros
>>>> get_unsafe_size() and put_unsafe_size().
>>>> Looking at the macro definitions I found __get_user_bad() and 
>>>> __put_user_bad().
>>>> I was wondering if instead of just adding the break statement I can 
>>>> also remove
>>>> such functions which seem to not have a definition.
>>> No, you can't. Try introducing a caller which "accidentally" uses the
>>> wrong size. Without your change you'll observe the build failing (in
>>> a somewhat obscure way, but still), while with your change bad code
>>> will silently be generated.
>>
>> The construct here is deliberate.  It's a build time assertion that bad
>> sizes aren't used.
>>
>> __bitop_bad_size() and __xsm_action_mismatch_detected() are the same
>> pattern in other areas of code too, with the latter being more explicit
>> because of how it's wrapped by LINKER_BUG_ON().
>>
>>
>> It is slightly horrible, and not the most obvious construct for
>> newcomers.  If there's an alternative way to get a build assertion, we
>> could consider switching to a new pattern.
> 
> would you be in favour of a solution with a BUILD_BUG_ON in the default 
> branch followed by a break?
> 
> default:
>      BUILD_BUG_ON(!size || size >=8 || (size & (size - 1)));
>      break;

I don't think this would compile - BUILD_BUG_ON() wants a compile-time
constant passed.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.