On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> gcc-11 warns that intel_dp_check_mst_status() has a local array of
> fourteen bytes and passes the last four bytes into a function that
> expects a six-byte array:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c: In function ‘intel_dp_check_mst_status’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c:4556:22: error: ‘drm_dp_channel_eq_ok’ reading 6 bytes from a region of size 4 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> 4556 | !drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(&esi[10], intel_dp->lane_count)) {
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c:4556:22: note: referencing argument 1 of type ‘const u8 *’ {aka ‘const unsigned char *’}
> In file included from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c:38:
> include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h:1459:6: note: in a call to function ‘drm_dp_channel_eq_ok’
> 1459 | bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Clearly something is wrong here, but I can't quite figure out what.
> Changing the array size to 16 bytes avoids the warning, but is
> probably the wrong solution here.
Ugh. drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() does not actually require more than
DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2 elements in the link_status. It's some other
related functions that do, and in most cases it's convenient to read all
those DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE bytes.
However, here the case is slightly different for DP MST, and the change
causes reserved DPCD addresses to be read. Not sure it matters, but
really I think the problem is what drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() advertizes.
I also don't like the array notation with sizes in function parameters
in general, because I think it's misleading. Would gcc-11 warn if a
function actually accesses the memory out of bounds of the size?
Anyway. I don't think we're going to get rid of the array notation
anytime soon, if ever, no matter how much I dislike it, so I think the
right fix would be to at least state the correct required size in
drm_dp_channel_eq_ok().
BR,
Jani.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> index 8c12d5375607..830e2515f119 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c
> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
> #include "intel_vdsc.h"
> #include "intel_vrr.h"
>
> -#define DP_DPRX_ESI_LEN 14
> +#define DP_DPRX_ESI_LEN 16
>
> /* DP DSC throughput values used for slice count calculations KPixels/s */
> #define DP_DSC_PEAK_PIXEL_RATE 2720000
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:05 AM Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Clearly something is wrong here, but I can't quite figure out what.
> > Changing the array size to 16 bytes avoids the warning, but is
> > probably the wrong solution here.
>
> Ugh. drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() does not actually require more than
> DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2 elements in the link_status. It's some other
> related functions that do, and in most cases it's convenient to read all
> those DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE bytes.
>
> However, here the case is slightly different for DP MST, and the change
> causes reserved DPCD addresses to be read. Not sure it matters, but
> really I think the problem is what drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() advertizes.
>
> I also don't like the array notation with sizes in function parameters
> in general, because I think it's misleading. Would gcc-11 warn if a
> function actually accesses the memory out of bounds of the size?
Yes, that is the point of the warning. Using an explicit length in an
array argument type tells gcc that the function will never access
beyond the end of that bound, and that passing a short array
is a bug.
I don't know if this /only/ means triggering a warning, or if gcc
is also able to make optimizations after classifying this as undefined
behavior that it would not make for an unspecified length.
> Anyway. I don't think we're going to get rid of the array notation
> anytime soon, if ever, no matter how much I dislike it, so I think the
> right fix would be to at least state the correct required size in
> drm_dp_channel_eq_ok().
Ok. Just to confirm: Changing the declaration to an unspecified length
avoids the warnings, as does the patch below:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
index eedbb48815b7..6ebeec3d88a7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
@@ -46,12 +46,12 @@
*/
/* Helpers for DP link training */
-static u8 dp_link_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE], int r)
+static u8 dp_link_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2], int r)
{
return link_status[r - DP_LANE0_1_STATUS];
}
-static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
+static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
int lane)
{
int i = DP_LANE0_1_STATUS + (lane >> 1);
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8
link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
return (l >> s) & 0xf;
}
-bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
+bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
int lane_count)
{
u8 lane_align;
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
index edffd1dcca3e..160f7fd127b1 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
@@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ enum drm_dp_phy {
#define DP_LINK_CONSTANT_N_VALUE 0x8000
#define DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE 6
-bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
+bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
int lane_count);
bool drm_dp_clock_recovery_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
int lane_count);
This obviously needs a good explanation in the code and the changelog text,
which I don't have, but if the above is what you had in mind, please take that
and add Reported-by/Tested-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>.
Arnd
On 3/25/21 3:53 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 9:05 AM Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Clearly something is wrong here, but I can't quite figure out what.
>>> Changing the array size to 16 bytes avoids the warning, but is
>>> probably the wrong solution here.
>>
>> Ugh. drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() does not actually require more than
>> DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2 elements in the link_status. It's some other
>> related functions that do, and in most cases it's convenient to read all
>> those DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE bytes.
>>
>> However, here the case is slightly different for DP MST, and the change
>> causes reserved DPCD addresses to be read. Not sure it matters, but
>> really I think the problem is what drm_dp_channel_eq_ok() advertizes.
>>
>> I also don't like the array notation with sizes in function parameters
>> in general, because I think it's misleading. Would gcc-11 warn if a
>> function actually accesses the memory out of bounds of the size?
>
> Yes, that is the point of the warning. Using an explicit length in an
> array argument type tells gcc that the function will never access
> beyond the end of that bound, and that passing a short array
> is a bug.
>
> I don't know if this /only/ means triggering a warning, or if gcc
> is also able to make optimizations after classifying this as undefined
> behavior that it would not make for an unspecified length.
GCC uses the array parameter notation as a hint for warnings but
it doesn't optimize on this basis and never will be able to because
code that accesses more elements from the array isn't invalid.
Adding static to the bound, as in void f (int[static N]) does
imply that the function won't access more than N elements and
C intends for optimizers to rely on it, although GCC doesn't yet.
The warning for the array notation is a more portable alternative
to explicitly annotating functions with attribute access, and to
-Wvla-parameter for VLA parameters. The latter seem to be used
relatively rarely, sometimes deliberately because of the bad rap
of VLA objects, even though VLA parameters don't suffer from
the same problems.
Martin
>
>> Anyway. I don't think we're going to get rid of the array notation
>> anytime soon, if ever, no matter how much I dislike it, so I think the
>> right fix would be to at least state the correct required size in
>> drm_dp_channel_eq_ok().
>
> Ok. Just to confirm: Changing the declaration to an unspecified length
> avoids the warnings, as does the patch below:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> index eedbb48815b7..6ebeec3d88a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> @@ -46,12 +46,12 @@
> */
>
> /* Helpers for DP link training */
> -static u8 dp_link_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE], int r)
> +static u8 dp_link_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2], int r)
> {
> return link_status[r - DP_LANE0_1_STATUS];
> }
>
> -static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> +static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
> int lane)
> {
> int i = DP_LANE0_1_STATUS + (lane >> 1);
> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static u8 dp_get_lane_status(const u8
> link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> return (l >> s) & 0xf;
> }
>
> -bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> +bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
> int lane_count)
> {
> u8 lane_align;
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> index edffd1dcca3e..160f7fd127b1 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h
> @@ -1456,7 +1456,7 @@ enum drm_dp_phy {
>
> #define DP_LINK_CONSTANT_N_VALUE 0x8000
> #define DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE 6
> -bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> +bool drm_dp_channel_eq_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE - 2],
> int lane_count);
> bool drm_dp_clock_recovery_ok(const u8 link_status[DP_LINK_STATUS_SIZE],
> int lane_count);
>
>
> This obviously needs a good explanation in the code and the changelog text,
> which I don't have, but if the above is what you had in mind, please take that
> and add Reported-by/Tested-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>.
>
> Arnd
>