mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"x86\@kernel.org H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uv/time: Replace one-element array and save heap space
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 08:52:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sgaziwmv.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200518190114.GA7757@embeddedor>

On Mon, May 18 2020 at 14:01, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> The current codebase makes use of one-element arrays in the following
> form:
>
> struct something {
>     int length;
>     u8 data[1];
> };
>
> struct something *instance;
>
> instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
> instance->length = size;
> memcpy(instance->data, source, size);
>
> but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as
> these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
>
> struct foo {
>         int stuff;
>         struct boo array[];
> };
>
> By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
> in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
> will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
> inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. So, replace
> the one-element array with a flexible-array member.
>
> Also, make use of the new struct_size() helper to properly calculate the
> total size needed to allocate dynamic memory for struct uv_rtc_timer_head.
> Notice that, due to the use of a one-element array, space for an extra
> struct cpu:
>
> struct {
> 	int     lcpu;           /* systemwide logical cpu number */
> 	u64     expires;        /* next timer expiration for this cpu */
> } cpu[1]
>
> was being allocated at the moment of applying the sizeof operator to
> struct uv_rtc_timer_head in the call to kmalloc_node() at line 159:
>
> 159		head = kmalloc_node(sizeof(struct uv_rtc_timer_head) +
> 160			(uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid) *
> 161				2 * sizeof(u64)),
> 162			GFP_KERNEL, nid);
>
> but that extra cpu[] was never actually being accessed due to the
> following piece of code at line 168:
>
> 168		head->ncpus = uv_blade_nr_possible_cpus(bid);
>
> and the piece of code at line 187:
>
> 187		for (c = 0; c < head->ncpus; c++) {
> 188			u64 exp = head->cpu[c].expires;
> 189			if (exp < lowest) {
> 190				bcpu = c;
> 191				lowest = exp;
> 192			}
> 193		}
>
> so heap space was being wasted.
>
> Another thing important to notice is that through the use of the
> struct_size() helper, code at line 161:
>
> 161		2 * sizeof(u64)),
>
> is changed to now be the actual size of struct cpu; see
> sizeof(*(p)->member) at include/linux/overflow.h:314:
>
> 314 #define struct_size(p, member, n)                                       \
> 315         __ab_c_size(n,                                                  \
> 316                     sizeof(*(p)->member) + __must_be_array((p)->member),\
> 317                     sizeof(*(p)))
>
> As a side note, the original developer could have implemented code at line
> 161: 2 * sizeof(64) as follows:
>
> sizeof(*head->cpu)

This changelog is an unparseable pile of word salad wasting brain heap
space.

The gist is:

    Variable sized arrays at the end of a struct should be defined as
    unsized array foo[] not as foo[1].

    struct uv_rtc_timer_head contains a sized array cpu[1].

    Switch it to an unsized array and use the struct_size() helper to
    calculate the allocation size.

Thanks,

        tglx


    

      parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-30  6:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-18 19:01 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-05-18 19:09 ` Joe Perches
2020-05-18 22:32   ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-05-20 17:19   ` Kees Cook
2020-05-20 19:01     ` Joe Perches
2020-05-21 23:24 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-09-29 23:14   ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-09-30  6:52 ` Thomas Gleixner [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=87sgaziwmv.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=andy@infradead.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
    --cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®