On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:29:05 -0500
Xi Wang <xi.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The tricky problem is this check:
>
> if (i++ >= max)
>
> icc (mis)optimizes this check as:
>
> if (++i > max)
>
> The check now becomes a no-op since max is MAX_ARG_STRINGS (0x7FFFFFFF).
>
> This is "allowed" by the C standard, assuming i++ never overflows,
> because signed integer overflow is undefined behavior. This optimization
> effectively reverts the previous commit 362e6663ef ("exec.c, compat.c:
> fix count(), compat_count() bounds checking") that tries to fix the check.
>
> This patch simply moves ++ after the check.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -434,8 +434,9 @@ static int count(struct user_arg_ptr argv, int max)
> if (IS_ERR(p))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> - if (i++ >= max)
> + if (i >= max)
> return -E2BIG;
> + ++i;
>
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return -ERESTARTNOHAND;
I have no problem working around a compiler bug when the workaround is
so small and simple. For clarity and accuracy I renamed the patch to
"fs/exec.c: work around icc miscompilation".
However I'd also like to be able to add "this bug has been reported to
the icc developers and will be fixed in version X.Y"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
