On 10/9/20 4:50 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:18:41PM -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
>> On 10/9/20 1:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:47:36PM -0700, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> clang static analysis reports this problem:
>>>>
>>>> rcutorture.c:1999:2: warning: Called function pointer
>>>> is null (null dereference)
>>>> cur_ops->sync(); /* Later readers see above write. */
>>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> This is a false positive triggered by an earlier, later ignored
>>>> NULL check of sync() op. By inspection of the rcu_torture_ops,
>>>> the sync() op is never uninitialized. So this earlier check is
>>>> not needed.
>>> You lost me on this one. This check is at the very beginning of
>>> rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr(). Or are you saying that clang is seeing an
>>> earlier check in one of rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr()'s callers? If so,
>>> where exactly is this check?
>>>
>>> In any case, the check is needed because all three functions are invoked
>>> if there is a self-propagating RCU callback that ensures that there is
>>> always an RCU grace period outstanding.
>>>
>>> Ah. Is clang doing local analysis and assuming that because there was
>>> a NULL check earlier, then the pointer might be NULL later? That does
>>> not seem to me to be a sound check.
>>>
>>> So please let me know exactly what is causing clang to emit this
>>> diagnostic. It might or might not be worth fixing this, but either way
>>> I need to understand the situation so as to be able to understand the
>>> set of feasible fixes.
>>>
>>> Thanx, Paul
>> In rcu_prog_nr() there is check for for sync.
>>
>> if ( ... cur_op->sync ...
>>
>> do something
>>
>> This flags in clang's static analyzer as 'could be null'
>>
>> later in the function, in a reachable block it is used
>>
>> cur_ops->sync()
>>
>> I agree this is not a good check that's why i said is was a false positive.
>>
>> However when looking closer at how cur_ops is set, it is never uninitialized.
>>
>> So the check is not needed.
> OK, got it, and thank you for the explanation.
>
>> This is not a fix, the code works fine. It is a small optimization.
> Well, there really is a bug. Yes, right now all ->sync pointers are
> non-NULL, but they have not been in the past and might not be in the
> future. So if ->sync is NULL, rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr() either should
> not be called or it should return immediately without doing anything.
>
> My current thought is something like the (untested) patch below, of
> course with your Reported-by.
>
> Thoughts?
Yes that would be fine.
In in review these other cases need to be been take care of.
Thanks,
Reported-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> index beba9e7..44749be 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> @@ -1989,7 +1989,9 @@ static void rcu_torture_fwd_prog_nr(struct rcu_fwd *rfp,
> unsigned long stopat;
> static DEFINE_TORTURE_RANDOM(trs);
>
> - if (cur_ops->call && cur_ops->sync && cur_ops->cb_barrier) {
> + if (!cur_ops->sync)
> + return; // Cannot do need_resched() forward progress testing without ->sync.
> + if (cur_ops->call && cur_ops->cb_barrier) {
> init_rcu_head_on_stack(&fcs.rh);
> selfpropcb = true;
> }
> @@ -2215,8 +2217,8 @@ static int __init rcu_torture_fwd_prog_init(void)
>
> if (!fwd_progress)
> return 0; /* Not requested, so don't do it. */
> - if (!cur_ops->stall_dur || cur_ops->stall_dur() <= 0 ||
> - cur_ops == &rcu_busted_ops) {
> + if ((!cur_ops->sync && !cur_ops->call) ||
> + !cur_ops->stall_dur || cur_ops->stall_dur() <= 0 || cur_ops == &rcu_busted_ops) {
> VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("rcu_torture_fwd_prog_init: Disabled, unsupported by RCU flavor under test");
> return 0;
> }
>
