Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] lib/vsprintf: Remove useless NULL checks

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> > > pointer().
> > > 
> > > Remove useless checks.
> > > 
> > > Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
> > > to optimize code away when possible.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/vsprintf.c | 13 +------------
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > index 97be2d07297a..a49da00b79e7 100644
> > > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > > @@ -819,10 +819,6 @@ char *hex_string(char *buf, char *end, u8
> > > *addr, struct printf_spec spec,
> > >  		/* nothing to print */
> > >  		return buf;
> > >  
> > > -	if (ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(addr))
> > 
> > This macro matches also values <= 16.
> 
> Yes, I know.
> 
> This had been discussed with Rasmus and we agreed that printing a result
> of kmalloc(0) is rather weird.

I see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1500546142.29303.133.camel@linux.intel.com
There you suggested to move this check into pointer(). But I do not
see any agreement on this.


> Moreover, in couple of cases I added these checks.
>  
> > >  	switch (fmt[1]) {
> > > @@ -1580,9 +1572,6 @@ char *device_node_string(char *buf, char *end,
> > > struct device_node *dn,
> > >  	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF))
> > >  		return string(buf, end, "(!OF)", spec);
> > >  
> > > -	if ((unsigned long)dn < PAGE_SIZE)
> > > -		return string(buf, end, "(null)", spec);
> > 
> > In this case, "null" was printed for ptr < PAGE_SIZE. The same check
> > is also in string() function.
> 
> Do we have a uses cases when invalid (non-NULL) pointer is supplied to
> print function?
> 
> Those call sites have to be fixed.

I am not aware of any. But this patch will make fixing such locations
more complicated. The kernel would crash and might not show any message.
Is this really what we want?

Note that it will most likely crash in vprintk_emit() on the line

   text_len = vscnprintf(text, sizeof(textbuf), fmt, args);

It will be with logbug_lock() taken. The nested printk() messages
will be stored in per-CPU buffer thanks to printk_safe code.
They might eventually be printed by printk_safe_flush_on_panic()
but it is not guaranteed.


> > Note that it is not only about the printed value. The pointer is later
> > derefecend. We will start crashing on dn > 0 && dn < PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> Yes.
> So, fix the call sites!

It would be easier if printk() was able to show the message
when hitting this place.

I did some archaeology. The first check for PAGE_SIZE was added
by the pre-git commit:

commit 8bcb3ba1dec5749a7f1eed570cb69a20c2e4bd41
Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date:   Tue Oct 21 18:22:28 2003 -0700

    [PATCH] make printk more robust with "null" pointers
    
    Expand printk's traditional handling of null pointers so that anything in the
    first page is considered a null pointer.
    
    This gives us better behaviour when someone (acpi..) accidentally prints a
    string which is embedded in a struct, the pointer to which is null.


IMHO, it would make sense to hanve this check also pointers that are
being deferred.


> > To be honest, I do not feel experienced enough to decide
> > about the preferred behavior. On one hand, it is bad when
> > printk() would crash the kernel. On the other hand, hiding wide
> > range of values under "(null)" string might confuse people.
> 
> > Would it make sense to survive and write different strings for
> > difference intervals? For example?
> > 
> >     "(null)"     for ptr == 0
> >     "(null-16)"  for ptr > 0 && ptr <= 16
> >     "(null-pg)"  for prt > 16 && ptr <= PAGE_SIZE
> > 
> > In each case, this patch changes the behavior and it should
> > be documented in the commit message.
> 
> Personally I strongly disagree with blowing code up in such places for
> little or none benefit.

I do not have strong opinion here. I could imagine that this might
save a day to some people. But I have never encountered such a bug
myself.

To make it clear. Your clean up work makes sense. I just want to point
out that this patch is not as innocent as the commit message suggest.
Also I think that it goes in the wrong direction regarding the
ability to show useful information in a buggy situation.

Best Regards,
Petr