[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLNvHVhbyr5Cbyoe8o0ARv52sU-NEpD+u2UYfESM3ofCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:36:11 +1300
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
dev@...nvswitch.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:17:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Can't have:
> >
> > switch (i) {
> > int j;
> > case 0:
> > /* ... */
> > }
> >
> > because it can't be turned into:
> >
> > switch (i) {
> > int j = 0; /* not valid C */
> > case 0:
> > /* ... */
> > }
> >
> > but can have e.g.:
> >
> > switch (i) {
> > case 0:
> > {
> > int j = 0;
> > /* ... */
> > }
> > }
> >
> > I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
> > enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.
>
> Another nesting level would be bad, but I think this is OK:
>
> switch (i) {
> case 0: {
> int j = 0;
> /* ... */
> }
> case 1: {
> void *p = q;
> /* ... */
> }
> }
>
> I can imagine Kees' patch might have a bad effect on stack consumption,
> unless GCC can be relied on to be smart enough to notice the
> non-overlapping liveness of the vriables and use the same stack slots
> for both.
GCC is reasonable at this. The main issue, though, was most of these
places were using the variables in multiple case statements, so they
couldn't be limited to a single block (or they'd need to be manually
repeated in each block, which is even more ugly, IMO).
Whatever the consensus, I'm happy to tweak the patch.
Thanks!
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
