All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	dev@openvswitch.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Maling list - DRI developers  <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:36:11 +1300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLNvHVhbyr5Cbyoe8o0ARv52sU-NEpD+u2UYfESM3ofCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190123191802.GB15311@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:17:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Can't have:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j;
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > because it can't be turned into:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j = 0; /* not valid C */
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > but can have e.g.:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >       case 0:
> >               {
> >                       int j = 0;
> >                       /* ... */
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> > I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
> > enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.
>
> Another nesting level would be bad, but I think this is OK:
>
>         switch (i) {
>         case 0: {
>                 int j = 0;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         case 1: {
>                 void *p = q;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         }
>
> I can imagine Kees' patch might have a bad effect on stack consumption,
> unless GCC can be relied on to be smart enough to notice the
> non-overlapping liveness of the vriables and use the same stack slots
> for both.

GCC is reasonable at this. The main issue, though, was most of these
places were using the variables in multiple case statements, so they
couldn't be limited to a single block (or they'd need to be manually
repeated in each block, which is even more ugly, IMO).

Whatever the consensus, I'm happy to tweak the patch.

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	dev@openvswitch.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Subject: [1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:36:11 +1300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLNvHVhbyr5Cbyoe8o0ARv52sU-NEpD+u2UYfESM3ofCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:17:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Can't have:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j;
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > because it can't be turned into:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j = 0; /* not valid C */
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > but can have e.g.:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >       case 0:
> >               {
> >                       int j = 0;
> >                       /* ... */
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> > I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
> > enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.
>
> Another nesting level would be bad, but I think this is OK:
>
>         switch (i) {
>         case 0: {
>                 int j = 0;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         case 1: {
>                 void *p = q;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         }
>
> I can imagine Kees' patch might have a bad effect on stack consumption,
> unless GCC can be relied on to be smart enough to notice the
> non-overlapping liveness of the vriables and use the same stack slots
> for both.

GCC is reasonable at this. The main issue, though, was most of these
places were using the variables in multiple case statements, so they
couldn't be limited to a single block (or they'd need to be manually
repeated in each block, which is even more ugly, IMO).

Whatever the consensus, I'm happy to tweak the patch.

Thanks!

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:36:11 +1300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLNvHVhbyr5Cbyoe8o0ARv52sU-NEpD+u2UYfESM3ofCw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190123191802.GB15311@bombadil.infradead.org>

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:17:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Can't have:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j;
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > because it can't be turned into:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j = 0; /* not valid C */
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > but can have e.g.:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >       case 0:
> >               {
> >                       int j = 0;
> >                       /* ... */
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> > I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
> > enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.
>
> Another nesting level would be bad, but I think this is OK:
>
>         switch (i) {
>         case 0: {
>                 int j = 0;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         case 1: {
>                 void *p = q;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         }
>
> I can imagine Kees' patch might have a bad effect on stack consumption,
> unless GCC can be relied on to be smart enough to notice the
> non-overlapping liveness of the vriables and use the same stack slots
> for both.

GCC is reasonable at this. The main issue, though, was most of these
places were using the variables in multiple case statements, so they
couldn't be limited to a single block (or they'd need to be manually
repeated in each block, which is even more ugly, IMO).

Whatever the consensus, I'm happy to tweak the patch.

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-01-23 20:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-23 11:03 [PATCH 0/3] gcc-plugins: Introduce stackinit plugin Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:58   ` [PATCH 1/3] " Greg KH
2019-01-23 11:58   ` Greg KH
2019-01-23 11:58     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Greg KH
2019-01-23 11:58     ` [1/3] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-01-23 12:09     ` [PATCH 1/3] " Jann Horn
2019-01-23 12:09     ` Jann Horn
2019-01-23 12:09       ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jann Horn
2019-01-23 12:09       ` Jann Horn
2019-01-23 12:09       ` [1/3] " Jann Horn
2019-01-23 12:12       ` [PATCH 1/3] " Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-23 12:12       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-23 12:12         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-23 12:12         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-23 12:12         ` [1/3] " Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-23 13:21       ` [PATCH 1/3] " William Kucharski
2019-01-23 13:21       ` William Kucharski
2019-01-23 13:21         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " William Kucharski
2019-01-23 13:21         ` [1/3] " William Kucharski
2019-01-23 14:17     ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:17       ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:17       ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:17       ` [1/3] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:23       ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:23       ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:23         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:23         ` [1/3] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 14:47       ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 14:47         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 14:47         ` Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 14:47         ` [1/3] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 14:47         ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 15:46         ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 15:46         ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 15:46           ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 15:46           ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 15:46           ` [1/3] " Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 18:55           ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 18:55             ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 18:55             ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 18:55             ` [1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 18:55             ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-24  8:10             ` Greg KH
2019-01-24  8:10             ` Greg KH
2019-01-24  8:10               ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Greg KH
2019-01-24  8:10               ` [1/3] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-01-24  8:10               ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Greg KH
2019-01-23 18:55           ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 19:18       ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-23 19:18         ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-23 19:18         ` [1/3] " Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-23 20:36         ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 20:36         ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-01-23 20:36           ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 20:36           ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 20:36           ` [1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 20:36           ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 19:18       ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-23 14:17     ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-23 16:51   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jeff Kirsher
2019-01-23 16:51     ` Jeff Kirsher
2019-01-23 16:51     ` Jeff Kirsher
2019-01-23 16:51     ` [1/3] " Jeff Kirsher
2019-01-23 16:51   ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/3] " Jeff Kirsher
2019-01-24 12:58   ` Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-24 12:58     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-24 12:58     ` [1/3] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-24 12:58     ` [PATCH 1/3] " Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-24 12:58   ` Edwin Zimmerman
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] gcc-plugins: Introduce stackinit plugin Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [2/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] lib: Introduce test_stackinit module Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03   ` [3/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] " Kees Cook
2019-01-23 11:20 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for gcc-plugins: Introduce stackinit plugin Patchwork
2019-01-23 14:26   ` Jani Nikula
2019-01-29  0:12 ` [PATCH 0/3] " Alexander Popov
2019-01-29  0:12 ` Alexander Popov
2019-01-29  0:12   ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Alexander Popov
2019-02-12 17:54   ` Kees Cook
2019-02-12 17:54   ` Kees Cook
2019-02-12 17:54     ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Kees Cook
2019-02-12 17:54     ` Kees Cook
2019-02-12 17:54     ` Kees Cook
2019-02-12 17:54     ` Kees Cook

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGXu5jLNvHVhbyr5Cbyoe8o0ARv52sU-NEpD+u2UYfESM3ofCw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=dev@openvswitch.org \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=labbott@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.