Re: [bug report] virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer handling

2017-06-02 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:29:49AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Michael S. Tsirkin,
> 
> The patch 6c8e5f3c41c8: "virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer
> handling" from Mar 6, 2017, leads to the following static checker
> warning:
> 
>   drivers/net/virtio_net.c:1042 virtnet_receive()
>   error: uninitialized symbol 'ctx'.
> 
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>   1030  static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget)
>   1031  {
>   1032  struct virtnet_info *vi = rq->vq->vdev->priv;
>   1033  unsigned int len, received = 0, bytes = 0;
>   1034  void *buf;
>   1035  struct virtnet_stats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(vi->stats);
>   1036  
>   1037  if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs) {
>   1038  void *ctx;
>   ^^^
>   1039  
>   1040  while (received < budget &&
>   1041 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf_ctx(rq->vq, , 
> ))) {
>
> 
>   1042  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, ctx);
>^^^
> 
> It's possible that this code is correct, but I looked at it and wasn't
> immediately convinced.  Returning non-NULL buf is not sufficient to
> show that "ctx" is initialized, because if it's vq->indirect then "buf"
> is still unintialized.  Also it's possible that receive_buf() checks
> vq->indirect through some side effect way that I didn't see so it
> doesn't use the uninitialized value...
> 
> I feel like if this is a false positive, that means the rules are too
> subtle...  :/

Yes, false positive I think.

What happens is this: __vring_new_virtqueue does:
vq->indirect = virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC) &&
!context;

so indirect is never set with context.

Adding code comments should help - could you take a stub at it?


>   1043  received++;
>   1044  }
>   1045  } else {
>   1046  while (received < budget &&
>   1047 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf(rq->vq, )) != 
> NULL) {
>   1048  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, NULL);
>   1049  received++;
>   1050  }
>   1051  }
>   1052  
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization


Re: [bug report] virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer handling

2017-04-06 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:29:49AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Michael S. Tsirkin,
> 
> The patch 6c8e5f3c41c8: "virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer
> handling" from Mar 6, 2017, leads to the following static checker
> warning:
> 
>   drivers/net/virtio_net.c:1042 virtnet_receive()
>   error: uninitialized symbol 'ctx'.


Thanks will fix asap.

> drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>   1030  static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget)
>   1031  {
>   1032  struct virtnet_info *vi = rq->vq->vdev->priv;
>   1033  unsigned int len, received = 0, bytes = 0;
>   1034  void *buf;
>   1035  struct virtnet_stats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(vi->stats);
>   1036  
>   1037  if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs) {
>   1038  void *ctx;
>   ^^^
>   1039  
>   1040  while (received < budget &&
>   1041 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf_ctx(rq->vq, , 
> ))) {
>
> 
>   1042  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, ctx);
>^^^
> 
> It's possible that this code is correct, but I looked at it and wasn't
> immediately convinced.  Returning non-NULL buf is not sufficient to
> show that "ctx" is initialized, because if it's vq->indirect then "buf"
> is still unintialized.  Also it's possible that receive_buf() checks
> vq->indirect through some side effect way that I didn't see so it
> doesn't use the uninitialized value...
> 
> I feel like if this is a false positive, that means the rules are too
> subtle...  :/
> 
>   1043  received++;
>   1044  }
>   1045  } else {
>   1046  while (received < budget &&
>   1047 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf(rq->vq, )) != 
> NULL) {
>   1048  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, NULL);
>   1049  received++;
>   1050  }
>   1051  }
>   1052  
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization


[bug report] virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer handling

2017-04-05 Thread Dan Carpenter
Hello Michael S. Tsirkin,

The patch 6c8e5f3c41c8: "virtio_net: rework mergeable buffer
handling" from Mar 6, 2017, leads to the following static checker
warning:

drivers/net/virtio_net.c:1042 virtnet_receive()
error: uninitialized symbol 'ctx'.

drivers/net/virtio_net.c
  1030  static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget)
  1031  {
  1032  struct virtnet_info *vi = rq->vq->vdev->priv;
  1033  unsigned int len, received = 0, bytes = 0;
  1034  void *buf;
  1035  struct virtnet_stats *stats = this_cpu_ptr(vi->stats);
  1036  
  1037  if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs) {
  1038  void *ctx;
  ^^^
  1039  
  1040  while (received < budget &&
  1041 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf_ctx(rq->vq, , 
))) {
   
  1042  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, ctx);
   ^^^

It's possible that this code is correct, but I looked at it and wasn't
immediately convinced.  Returning non-NULL buf is not sufficient to
show that "ctx" is initialized, because if it's vq->indirect then "buf"
is still unintialized.  Also it's possible that receive_buf() checks
vq->indirect through some side effect way that I didn't see so it
doesn't use the uninitialized value...

I feel like if this is a false positive, that means the rules are too
subtle...  :/

  1043  received++;
  1044  }
  1045  } else {
  1046  while (received < budget &&
  1047 (buf = virtqueue_get_buf(rq->vq, )) != NULL) 
{
  1048  bytes += receive_buf(vi, rq, buf, len, NULL);
  1049  received++;
  1050  }
  1051  }
  1052  

regards,
dan carpenter
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization