Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: remove unneeded check

[Paul E. McKenney]

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?

							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;
 	}