Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value()

[Alexander Potapenko]

>
> Thanks to GENMASK() implementation, you'll be warned by GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK()
> if nbits is a compile-time variable. In case of runtime, it's a pure undef,
> not mentioning useless, expensive and dangerous fetch.
>
> > >  - we anyway need a dynamic check for the case nbits is not constant
> > > (for both bitmap_get_value() and bitmap_set_value(), I assume).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
>
> I think that instead of speculations, it's better to cover nbits == 0
> with the explicit tests for run- and compile-time. That way you're
> always on a safe side.

You are right. I added tests for these cases.

> bitmap_get_val(NULL, 0, 0) shouldn't crash the kernel.

Haha, the compiler is smart enough to not crash the kernel in this case.
But passing zero via a volatile variable did the trick.

>
> > The idea behind is to eliminate the code completely for the cases nbits != 0.
> > In your case the dynamic check will be there. That's what we want to avoid.
>
> Alexander is right - we can't avoid testing against 0 if we need to
> test for 0... In case of other functions we have inline and outline
> implementations, controlled by small_const_nbits().
>
> As you can see, the small_const_nbits() tests against 0 explicitly,
> although it's free at compile time. But if nbits == 0, we pick
> outline version of a function regardless.
>
> On their turn, outline versions again do their test against nbits == 0,
> but most of the time implicitly.
>
> In case of bitmap_set_val, we are touching at max 2 words, and there's
> no reason for outline version, so we have to test nbits against 0
> inside inline code.
>
> Having all that in mind, and because nbits == 0 is most likely an
> error we'd follow the following rules:
>  - no memory must be touched as we're potentially in error condition,
>    and pointer may be corrupted;
>  - the cost of the check must be as minimal as possible.
>
> So I suggest:
>
>         if (unlikely(nbits == 0))
>                 return;

Sounds good, I'll add unlikely() around the check.
Thanks for the explanation!

>
> For readers that would literally mean: we don't expect that, and we find
> it suspicious, but we'll handle that as correct as we can.
>
> By the way, Alexander, please drop that 'const' things. Those are for
> pointers or some global variables, not for inline functions with 4
> lines of code. (If you think it helps the code to be safe than no - it's
> unsafe even with consts.)

These consts are from the original Syed's patch and were probably
added for consistency with bitmap_{set,get}_value8().
But, okay, I'll remove them.




--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Liana Sebastian
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg