Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Drop 'const' from argument of vq_present()

From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Drop 'const' from argument of vq_present()
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:26:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190604092639.GS28398@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190604085545.hsmxfqkpt2cbrhtw@vireshk-i7>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 02:25:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-06-19, 09:43, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:13:19AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > We currently get following compilation warning:
> > > 
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c: In function 'set_sve_vls':
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c:262:18: warning: passing argument 1 of 'vq_present' from incompatible pointer type
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c:212:13: note: expected 'const u64 (* const)[8]' but argument is of type 'u64 (*)[8]'
> > 
> > Since the vq_present() function does not modify the vqs array, I don't
> > understand why this warning. Compiler bug?
> 
> Probably yes. Also marking array argument to functions as const is a
> right thing to do, to declare that the function wouldn't change the
> array values.
> 
> I tried a recent toolchain and this doesn't happen anymore.
> 
> Sorry for the noise.

Sparse is already warning about this, but I had dismissed it as a false
positive.

I think this is an instance of disallowing implicit conversions of the
form

	T ** -> T const **

because this allows a const pointer to be silently de-consted, e.g.:

static const T bar;

void foo(T const **p)
{
	*p = &bar;
}

T *baz(void)
{
	T *q; 
	foo(&q);
	return q;
}

I _suspect_ that what's going on here is that the compiler is
eliminating a level of indirection during inlining (i.e. converting
pass-by-reference to direct access, which is precisely what I wanted
to happen).  This removes the potentially invalid behaviour as a
side-effect.

This relies on the compiler optimising / analysing the code
aggressively enough though.

So, I don't have a problem with dropping the extra extra const, e.g.:

static bool vq_present(
	u64 (*const vqs)[KVM_ARM64_SVE_VLS_WORDS],
	unsigned int vq)

Since this function is static and only used very locally, I don't see a
big risk: the only reason for the extra const was to check that
vq_present() doesn't modify vqs when it shouldn't.  But it's a trivial
function, and the intent is pretty clear without the extra type
modifier.

I'm in two minds about whether this is worth fixing, but if you want to
post a patch to remove the extra const (or convert vq_present() to a
macro), I'll take a look at it.

Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm