From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] protect some clobbered variables with volatile
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:55:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130217175512.GE20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1360535421.23424.467.camel@eris.loria.fr>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:31:41PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> When switching optimization to higher levels (-O3) and enable link time
> optimization (-flto) gcc finds two variables that might be clobbered
> accross longjmp (orig_tail in dynlink) or vfork (f in popen):
>
> src/ldso/dynlink.c:1014:27: warning: variable ‘orig_tail’ might be clobbered by ‘longjmp’ or ‘vfork’ [-Wclobbered]
> src/stdio/popen.c:21:8: warning: variable ‘f’ might be clobbered by ‘longjmp’ or ‘vfork’ [-Wclobbered]
>
> Trust the analysis of the compiler and protect these variables with
> volatile. Both variables are only loaded once or twice, so this should
> never cause a performance penalty.
>
> 1 1 src/ldso/dynlink.c
> 1 1 src/stdio/popen.c
>
> diff --git a/src/ldso/dynlink.c b/src/ldso/dynlink.c
> index efbec8f..e19a21f 100644
> --- a/src/ldso/dynlink.c
> +++ b/src/ldso/dynlink.c
> @@ -1011,7 +1011,7 @@ void __init_ldso_ctors(void)
>
> void *dlopen(const char *file, int mode)
> {
> - struct dso *volatile p, *orig_tail, *next;
> + struct dso *volatile p, *volatile orig_tail, *next;
As far as I can tell, this is a false positive. orig_tail is never
modified between setjmp and longjmp. Static analysis is probably
failing due to subsequent modification to orig_tail after the last
possible point at which a longjmp could occur.
> diff --git a/src/stdio/popen.c b/src/stdio/popen.c
> index ed20f5a..e5fbc4f 100644
> --- a/src/stdio/popen.c
> +++ b/src/stdio/popen.c
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ FILE *popen(const char *cmd, const char *mode)
> {
> int p[2], op, i;
> pid_t pid;
> - FILE *f;
> + FILE *volatile f;
> sigset_t old;
> const char *modes = "rw", *mi = strchr(modes, *mode);
Could you explain what the issue is here? I'm not following it. I
intend to remove the vfork usage soon anyway, but I'd like to
understand (and commit a patch with a commit-message documenting what
the problem was) if it's wrong right now for reasons other than the
fact that vfork is wrong to begin with. But on the other hand, I don't
want to commit a cargo-cult patch with a message like "because the
compiler warnings said so"...
Rich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-17 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-10 22:31 Jens Gustedt
2013-02-11 1:14 ` Rich Felker
2013-02-17 17:55 ` Rich Felker [this message]
2013-02-18 0:13 ` Jens Gustedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130217175512.GE20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx \
--to=dalias@aerifal.cx \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).