Ping, Any taker want to review or suggest alternative
way to fix the nested loop delete bug?
I will try the mark delete approach as well. When to pack it is the tricky
part because the function might be call at different place. e.g.
parent in a ptrlist loop already vs not in a ptrlist loop.
I am just glad the ptrlist ref count patch did not reveal more
nesting loop delete offends. This pseudo->user list and ep->bbs
are the only two occasion the patch die on.
We might get away with do not pack the pseudo->users list at all.
Chris
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I found a temporary solution is simple enough.
>
> Instead of marking the entry deleted. I just use a duplicate
> version of the list->list[] when doing the loop. It will have
> unwanted effect that iterator will issue some ptr are already
> deleted. Other than that, it is very straight forward.
>
> It pass the kernel compile test without issue different warnings.
> It also pass the ptrlist ref checking. The ref count patch can now
> complete the full kernel check without die() on it. Again no difference
> in warning.
>
> Chris
>
>
> From 18453b4b920ae53f25bc389609218d97e7f583a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 07:53:21 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Let pseudo->users loop on duplicate version of list
>
> pseudo->users list will change during find dominator.
> That cause a bug in the ptrlist because the outer loop iterator
> is not award of the deletion of the entry.
>
> Let the outer loop using a duplicate version of entry
> to avoid this problem for now.
>
> This is to fix the bug report by the ptrlist ref counting check.
> With this change, the ptrlist ref counting check can complete
> the kernel compile without reporting an error.
>
> Signed-of-By: Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> flow.c | 7 ++++++-
> ptrlist.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/flow.c b/flow.c
> index fce8bde..2705448 100644
> --- a/flow.c
> +++ b/flow.c
> @@ -730,7 +730,12 @@ multi_def:
> complex_def:
> external_visibility:
> all = 1;
> - FOR_EACH_PTR_REVERSE(pseudo->users, pu) {
> + /*
> + * FIXME: pseudo->users will have some entry deleted during looping.
> + * The loop will run on a duplicated version of the list entry for now.
> + * Should fix it properly later.
> + */
> + FOR_EACH_PTR_REVERSE_DUP(pseudo->users, pu) {
> struct instruction *insn = pu->insn;
> if (insn->opcode == OP_LOAD)
> all &= find_dominating_stores(pseudo, insn, ++bb_generation, !mod);
> diff --git a/ptrlist.h b/ptrlist.h
> index d09be2f..5299ee5 100644
> --- a/ptrlist.h
> +++ b/ptrlist.h
> @@ -184,6 +184,20 @@ static inline void *last_ptr_list(struct ptr_list *list)
> ptr = PTR_ENTRY(__list,__nr); \
> do {
>
> +#define DO_FOR_EACH_REVERSE_DUP(head, ptr, __head, __list, __dup,
> __nr, PTR_ENTRY) do { \
> + struct ptr_list *__head = (struct ptr_list *) (head); \
> + struct ptr_list *__list = __head; \
> + CHECK_TYPE(head,ptr); \
> + if (__head) { \
> + do { int __nr; \
> + __list = __list->prev; \
> + __nr = __list->nr; \
> + struct ptr_list __dup; \
> + memcpy(__dup.list, __list->list, sizeof(ptr)*__nr); \
> + while (--__nr >= 0) { \
> + do { \
> + ptr = PTR_ENTRY(&__dup,__nr); \
> + do {
>
> #define DO_END_FOR_EACH_REVERSE(ptr, __head, __list, __nr) \
> } while (0); \
> @@ -231,6 +245,9 @@ static inline void *last_ptr_list(struct ptr_list *list)
> #define FOR_EACH_PTR_REVERSE(head, ptr) \
> DO_FOR_EACH_REVERSE(head, ptr, __head##ptr, __list##ptr, __nr##ptr, PTR_ENTRY)
>
> +#define FOR_EACH_PTR_REVERSE_DUP(head, ptr) \
> + DO_FOR_EACH_REVERSE_DUP(head, ptr, __head##ptr, __list##ptr,
> __dup##ptr, __nr##ptr, PTR_ENTRY)
> +
> #define END_FOR_EACH_PTR_REVERSE(ptr) \
> DO_END_FOR_EACH_REVERSE(ptr, __head##ptr, __list##ptr, __nr##ptr)
>
> --
> 2.9.4
--
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
