Re: Buggy commit tracked to: "Re: [PATCH 2/9] iov_iter: move rw_copy_check_uvector() into lib/iov_iter.c"

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:48:05PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:36:40AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.10.20 11:32, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: David Hildenbrand
> > >> Sent: 22 October 2020 10:25
> > > ...
> > >> ... especially because I recall that clang and gcc behave slightly
> > >> differently:
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/issues/2
> > >>
> > >> "Function args are different: narrow types are sign or zero extended to
> > >> 32 bits, depending on their type. clang depends on this for incoming
> > >> args, but gcc doesn't make that assumption. But both compilers do it
> > >> when calling, so gcc code can call clang code.
> > > 
> > > It really is best to use 'int' (or even 'long') for all numeric
> > > arguments (and results) regardless of the domain of the value.
> > > 
> > > Related, I've always worried about 'bool'....
> > > 
> > >> The upper 32 bits of registers are always undefined garbage for types
> > >> smaller than 64 bits."
> > > 
> > > On x86-64 the high bits are zeroed by all 32bit loads.
> > 
> > Yeah, but does not help here.
> > 
> > 
> > My thinking: if the compiler that calls import_iovec() has garbage in
> > the upper 32 bit
> > 
> > a) gcc will zero it out and not rely on it being zero.
> > b) clang will not zero it out, assuming it is zero.
> > 
> > But
> > 
> > a) will zero it out when calling the !inlined variant
> > b) clang will zero it out when calling the !inlined variant
> > 
> > When inlining, b) strikes. We access garbage. That would mean that we
> > have calling code that's not generated by clang/gcc IIUC.
> > 
> > We can test easily by changing the parameters instead of adding an "inline".
> 
> Let me try that as well, as I seem to have a good reproducer, but it
> takes a while to run...

Ok, that didn't work.

And I can't seem to "fix" this by adding noinline to patches further
along in the patch series (because this commit's function is no longer
present due to later patches.)

Will keep digging...

greg k-h