Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-pci: Remove wrong address verification in
 vp_del_vqs()
From:   Christophe Marie Francois Dupont de Dinechin <cdupontd@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <e8620e70-16bb-639c-9446-68dcd199253f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:46:40 +0200
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mopsfelder@gmail.com,
        Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin@redhat.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5CD1C91-F5D0-4109-9894-824184362B5C@redhat.com>
References: <20220415023002.49805-1-muriloo@linux.ibm.com>
 <e8620e70-16bb-639c-9446-68dcd199253f@linux.ibm.com>
To:     muriloo@linux.ibm.com
Precedence: bulk


> On 15 Apr 2022, at 05:51, Murilo Opsfelder Ara=C3=BAjo =
<muriloo@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 4/14/22 23:30, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote:
>> GCC 12 enhanced -Waddress when comparing array address to null [0],
>> which warns:
>>     drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c: In function =E2=80=98vp_del_vqs=
=E2=80=99:
>>     drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c:257:29: warning: the =
comparison will always evaluate as =E2=80=98true=E2=80=99 for the =
pointer operand in =E2=80=98vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks + =
(sizetype)((long unsigned int)i * 256)=E2=80=99 must not be NULL =
[-Waddress]
>>       257 |                         if =
(vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i])
>>           |                             ^~~~~~
>> In fact, the verification is comparing the result of a pointer
>> arithmetic, the address "msix_affinity_masks + i", which will always
>> evaluate to true.
>> Under the hood, free_cpumask_var() calls kfree(), which is safe to =
pass
>> NULL, not requiring non-null verification.  So remove the =
verification
>> to make compiler happy (happy compiler, happy life).
>> [0] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102103
>> Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muriloo@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c =
b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> index d724f676608b..5046efcffb4c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c
>> @@ -254,8 +254,7 @@ void vp_del_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>    	if (vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks) {
>>  		for (i =3D 0; i < vp_dev->msix_vectors; i++)
>> -			if (vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i])
>> -				=
free_cpumask_var(vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i]);
>> +			=
free_cpumask_var(vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i]);
>>  	}
>>    	if (vp_dev->msix_enabled) {
>=20
> After I sent this message, I realized that Christophe (copied here)
> had already proposed a fix:
>=20
>    =
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220414150855.2407137-4-dinechin@redhat.com/=

>=20
> Christophe,
>=20
> Since free_cpumask_var() calls kfree() and kfree() is null-safe,
> can we just drop this null verification and call free_cpumask_var() =
right away?

Apologies for the delay in responding, broken laptop=E2=80=A6

In the case where CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is not defined, we have:

	typedef struct cpumask cpumask_var_t[1];

So that vp_dev->msix_affinity_masks[i] is statically not null (that=E2=80=99=
s the warning)
but also a static pointer, so not kfree-safe IMO.