From: Ameer Hamza <amhamza.mgc@gmail.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: vkuznets@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: x86: fix for missing initialization of return status variable
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:40:31 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211206184031.GA143655@hamza-OptiPlex-7040> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ya5P4WWsgCyQZvBH@google.com>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:01:05PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021, Ameer Hamza wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 05:02:01PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021, Ameer Hamza wrote:
> > > > If undefined ioctl number is passed to the kvm_vcpu_ioctl_device_attr
> > > > ioctl, we should trigger KVM_BUG_ON() and return with EIO to silent
> > > > coverity warning.
> > > >
> > > > Addresses-Coverity: 1494124 ("Uninitialized scalar variable")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ameer Hamza <amhamza.mgc@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > Added KVM_BUG_ON() as default case and returned -EIO
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index e0aa4dd53c7f..b37068f847ff 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -5019,6 +5019,9 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_device_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > case KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR:
> > > > r = kvm_arch_tsc_set_attr(vcpu, &attr);
> > > > break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + KVM_BUG_ON(1, vcpu->kvm);
> > > > + r = -EIO;
> > >
> > > At least have a
> > >
> > > break;
> > >
> > > if we're going to be pedantic about things.
> > I just started as a contributer in this community and trying
> > to fix issues found by static analyzer tools. If you think that's
> > not necessary, its totally fine :)
>
> (Most) Static analyzers are great, they definitely find real bugs. But they also
> have a fair number of false positives, e.g. this is a firmly a false positive, so
> the results of any static analyzer needs to thought about critically, not blindly
> followed. It's completely understandable that Coverity got tripped up in this
> case, but that's exactly why having a human vet the bug report is necessary.
>
> There is arguably value in having a default statement to ensure future KVM code
> doesn't end up adding a bad call, which is why I'm not completely opposed to the
> above addition.
>
> Where folks, myself included, get a bit grumpy is when patches are sent to "fix"
> bug reports from static analyzers without evidence that the submitter has done
> their due dilegence to understand the code they are changing, e.g. even without
> any understanding of KVM, a search of kvm_vcpu_ioctl_device_attr() in the code
> base and reading of the function would have shown that the report was a false
> positive, albeit a somewhat odd one, and that returning -EINVAL was likely the
> wrong thing to do. If you're unsure if something is a real bug, please ask a
> question.
>
> Rapid firing patches at the list also makes reviewers grumpy as it again suggests
> a lack of due dilegence, especially when the patches have typos ("EINV" in v2)
> and/or have obvious shortcomings (missing "break" in v3).
>
> TL;DR: I have no objection whatsover to fixing (potential) bugs found by static
> analyzers, but please slow down and (a) make sure that it's actually a bug, (b)
> ask if you're unsure, and (c) do your best to ensure that what you're sending is
> an overall improvement.
Totally agreed with you. Thank you so much for your insights on this. I will keep
this into consideration moving forward.
Best Regards,
Hamza.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-06 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-05 19:47 [PATCH] KVM: x86: fix for missing initialization of return status variable Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 9:06 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-12-06 9:32 ` Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 10:24 ` [PATCH v2] " Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 15:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-06 16:08 ` Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 16:45 ` [PATCH v3] " Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 17:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-06 17:27 ` Ameer Hamza
2021-12-06 18:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-06 18:40 ` Ameer Hamza [this message]
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=20211206184031.GA143655@hamza-OptiPlex-7040 \
--to=amhamza.mgc@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).