On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Wei Wang <wei.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2018 07:30 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 2018-07-26 12:15, Wei Wang wrote:
>>> if (bits % BITS_PER_LONG)
>>> w += hweight_long(bitmap[k] & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(bits));
>>>
>>> we could remove the "if" check by "w += hweight_long(bitmap[k] &
>>> BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(bits % BITS_PER_LONG));" the branch is the same.
>>
>> Absolutely not! That would access bitmap[lim] (the final value of the k
>> variable) despite that word not being part of the bitmap.
> Probably it's more clear to post the entire function here for a discussion:
>
> int __bitmap_weight(const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int bits)
> {
> unsigned int k, lim = bits/BITS_PER_LONG;
> int w = 0;
>
> for (k = 0; k < lim; k++)
> w += hweight_long(bitmap[k]);
>
> if (bits % BITS_PER_LONG)
> ==> w += hweight_long(bitmap[k] & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(bits));
>
> return w;
> }
>
> When the execution reaches "==>", isn't "k=lim"?
Let's check again, if bits == 0, bits % whatever == 0 as well, thus,
no execution. When bits < BITS_PER_LONG, the execution is fine (k = 0
and still 0).
When bits >= BITS_PER_LONG, but not aligned, k goes from 0 to lim and
last word is exactly the partially filled one. No problem here. Las
case if bits % BITS_PER_LONG == 0, but hey, we have a guard against
this.
So, where is the problem exactly?
>> OTOH, for nbits=0, there _is_ no last word (since there are no words at
>> all), so by the time you want to apply the result of
>> BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(0) to anything, you already have a bug, probably
>> either having read or being about to write into bitmap[0], which you
>> cannot do. Please check that user-space port and see if there are bugs
>> of that kind.
> Yes, some callers there don't check for nbits=0, that's why I think it is
> better to offload that check to the macro. The macro itself can be robust to
> handle all the cases.
Where they are? Can't you point out?
>> So no, the existing users of BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK do not check for
>> nbits being zero, they check for whether there is a partial last word,
>> which is something different.
> Yes, but "partial" could be "0".
How come?!
>> And they mostly (those in lib/bitmap.c) do
>> that because they've already handled _all_ the full words. Then there
>> are some users in include/linux/bitmap.h, that check for
>> small_const_nbits(nbits), and in those cases, we really want ~0UL when
>> nbits is BITS_PER_LONG, because small_const_nbits implies there is
>> exactly one word. Yeah, there's an implicit assumption that the bitmap
>> routines are never called with a compile-time constant nbits==0 (see the
>> unconditional accesses to *src and *dst), but changing the semantics of
>> BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK and making it return different values for nbits=0
>> vs nbits=64 wouldn't fix that latent bug.
> nbits=0, means there is no bit needs to mask
Like Rasmus said it's rather broken input and here you can consider
nbits==0 brings _rightfully_ UB to the caller's code.
> nbits=64, means all the 64 bits need to mask
>
> The two are different cases, I'm not sure why we let the macro to return the
> same value.
The point is macro mustn't be called when nbits==0.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
