On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 08:30:31AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > Those function originally all assume the list > are packed. > > Is there usage case in current sparse that > feed unpacked list to those function? > > Chris The situation is not black & white. There is two 'unsafe' cases. By 'unsafe' I mean that DELETE_CURRENT_PTR() is used but without PACK_PTR_LIST() and the end of the iteration like done elsewhere. OTOH, I've added at the beginning of every ptr_list loops some assert() that check if the ptr_list is packed or not and none ever triggered, even when LIST_NODE_NR is changed from 29 to 1 (to force list->nr == 0 at each delete). Also, assertions doing bound checking on ptr_list::list[] accesses never triggered. So, to answer your question, it seems that in the current sparse code we don't feed unpacked lists to the 'dangerous' functions but for the two unsafe case you can't guarantee thsi just by looking at the local code (or it's just by chance). I think that for the moment, it's best to simply add PACK_PTR_LIST() at the end of the two unsafe cases (patch will come later). OTOH, I feel this whole situation is a bit fragile. NOTE: for the moment, I've only checked all this with the testsuite. I will recheck on more substantial amount of code but this will need to wait a little bit. Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
