The use of any sort of waitqueue (simple or regular) for
wait/waking vcpus has always been an overkill and semantically
wrong. Because this is per-vcpu (which is blocked) there is
only ever a single waiting vcpu, thus no need for any sort of
queue.
As such, make use of the rcuwait primitive, with the following
considerations:
- rcuwait already provides the proper barriers that serialize
concurrent waiter and waker.
- Task wakeup is done in rcu read critical region, with a
stable task pointer.
- Because there is no concurrency among waiters, we need
not worry about rcuwait_wait_event() calls corrupting
the wait->task. As a consequence, this saves the locking
done in swait when modifying the queue. This also applies
to per-vcore wait for powerpc kvm-hv.
The x86 tscdeadline_latency test mentioned in 8577370fb0
("KVM: Use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq") shows that, on avg,
latency is reduced by around 15-20% with this change.
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Message-Id: <20200424054837.5138-6-dave@stgolabs.net>
[Avoid extra logic changes. - Paolo]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
This call is lockless and thus should not be trusted blindly.
For example, the return value of rcuwait_wakeup() should be used to
track whether a process was woken up.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Message-Id: <20200424054837.5138-5-dave@stgolabs.net>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
This allows further flexibility for some callers to implement
ad-hoc versions of the generic rcuwait_wait_event(). For example,
kvm will need this to maintain tracing semantics. The naming
is of course similar to what waitqueue apis offer.
Also go ahead and make use of rcu_assign_pointer() for both task
writes as it will make the __rcu sparse people happy - this will
be the special nil case, thus no added serialization.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Message-Id: <20200424054837.5138-4-dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL is a per-VM capability that lets userspace
control the halt-polling time, allowing halt-polling to be tuned or
disabled on particular VMs.
With dynamic halt-polling, a VM's VCPUs can poll from anywhere from
[0, halt_poll_ns] on each halt. KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL sets the
upper limit on the poll time.
Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jon Cargille <jcargill@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Message-Id: <20200417221446.108733-1-jcargill@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In earlier versions of kvm, 'kvm_run' was an independent structure
and was not included in the vcpu structure. At present, 'kvm_run'
is already included in the vcpu structure, so the parameter
'kvm_run' is redundant.
This patch simplifies the function definition, removes the extra
'kvm_run' parameter, and extracts it from the 'kvm_vcpu' structure
if necessary.
Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-Id: <20200416051057.26526-1-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Create a new function kvm_is_visible_memslot() and use it from
kvm_is_visible_gfn(); use the new function in try_async_pf() too,
to avoid an extra memslot lookup.
Opportunistically squish a multi-line comment into a single-line comment.
Note, the end result, KVM_PFN_NOSLOT, is unchanged.
Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
The macros VM_STAT and VCPU_STAT are redundantly implemented in multiple
files, each used by a different architecure to initialize the debugfs
entries for statistics. Since they all have the same purpose, they can be
unified in a single common definition in include/linux/kvm_host.h
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200414155625.20559-1-eesposit@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Pull irq fixes from Thomas Gleixner:
"A set of fixes/updates for the interrupt subsystem:
- Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq(). All users have been converted
so remove them before new users surface.
- A set of bugfixes for various interrupt chip drivers
- Add a few missing static attributes to address sparse warnings"
* tag 'irq-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Make bcm7038_l1_of_init() static
irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: Make legacy_bindings static
irqchip/meson-gpio: Fix HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order
irqchip/sifive-plic: Fix maximum priority threshold value
irqchip/ti-sci-inta: Fix processing of masked irqs
irqchip/mbigen: Free msi_desc on device teardown
irqchip/gic-v4.1: Update effective affinity of virtual SGIs
irqchip/gic-v4.1: Add support for VPENDBASER's Dirty+Valid signaling
genirq: Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq()
Pull ext4 fixes from Ted Ts'o:
"Miscellaneous bug fixes and cleanups for ext4, including a fix for
generic/388 in data=journal mode, removing some BUG_ON's, and cleaning
up some compiler warnings"
* tag 'ext4_for_linus_stable' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4:
ext4: convert BUG_ON's to WARN_ON's in mballoc.c
ext4: increase wait time needed before reuse of deleted inode numbers
ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es' in ext4_jbd2.c
ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es'
ext4: do not zeroout extents beyond i_disksize
ext4: fix return-value types in several function comments
ext4: use non-movable memory for superblock readahead
ext4: use matching invalidatepage in ext4_writepage
Pull flexible-array member conversion from Gustavo Silva:
"The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array
member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof
operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original
implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible
array members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of
code in which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously
applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances
may be hiding some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member
convertions) will also help to get completely rid of those sorts of
issues.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
quite a while now and, 238 more of these patches have already been
merged into 5.7-rc1.
There are a couple hundred more of these issues waiting to be
addressed in the whole codebase"
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
* tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (28 commits)
xattr.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: fiemap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: dlm_device.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
tpm_eventlog.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ti_wilink_st.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
swap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
skbuff.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
sched: topology.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rslib.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rio.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
posix_acl.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
platform_data: wilco-ec.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
memcontrol.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
list_lru.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
lib: cpu_rmap: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
irq.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ihex.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
igmp.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
genalloc.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ethtool.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
...
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Pull irqchip fixes from Marc Zyngier:
- Fix the mbigen driver to properly free its MSI descriptors on teardown
- Fix the TI INTA driver to avoid handling spurious interrupts from masked interrupts
- Fix the SiFive PLIC driver to use the correct interrupt priority mask
- Fix the Amlogic Meson gpio driver creative locking
- Fix the GICv4.1 virtual SGI set_affinity callback to update the effective affinity
- Allow the GICv4.x driver to synchronize with the HW pending table parsing
- Fix a couple of missing static attributes
When a vPE is made resident, the GIC starts parsing the virtual pending
table to deliver pending interrupts. This takes place asynchronously,
and can at times take a long while. Long enough that the vcpu enters
the guest and hits WFI before any interrupt has been signaled yet.
The vcpu then exits, blocks, and now gets a doorbell. Rince, repeat.
In order to avoid the above, a (optional on GICv4, mandatory on v4.1)
feature allows the GIC to feedback to the hypervisor whether it is
done parsing the VPT by clearing the GICR_VPENDBASER.Dirty bit.
The hypervisor can then wait until the GIC is ready before actually
running the vPE.
Plug the detection code as well as polling on vPE schedule. While
at it, tidy-up the kernel message that displays the GICv4 optional
features.
Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Since commit a8ac900b81 ("ext4: use non-movable memory for the
superblock") buffers for ext4 superblock were allocated using
the sb_bread_unmovable() helper which allocated buffer heads
out of non-movable memory blocks. It was necessarily to not block
page migrations and do not cause cma allocation failures.
However commit 85c8f176a6 ("ext4: preload block group descriptors")
broke this by introducing pre-reading of the ext4 superblock.
The problem is that __breadahead() is using __getblk() underneath,
which allocates buffer heads out of movable memory.
It resulted in page migration failures I've seen on a machine
with an ext4 partition and a preallocated cma area.
Fix this by introducing sb_breadahead_unmovable() and
__breadahead_gfp() helpers which use non-movable memory for buffer
head allocations and use them for the ext4 superblock readahead.
Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Fixes: 85c8f176a6 ("ext4: preload block group descriptors")
Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200229001411.128010-1-guro@fb.com
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
All in-tree users have been converted to the new i2c_new_scanned_device
function, so remove this deprecated one.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Check that the resolved slot (somewhat confusingly named 'start') is a
valid/allocated slot before doing the final comparison to see if the
specified gfn resides in the associated slot. The resolved slot can be
invalid if the binary search loop terminated because the search index
was incremented beyond the number of used slots.
This bug has existed since the binary search algorithm was introduced,
but went unnoticed because KVM statically allocated memory for the max
number of slots, i.e. the access would only be truly out-of-bounds if
all possible slots were allocated and the specified gfn was less than
the base of the lowest memslot. Commit 36947254e5 ("KVM: Dynamically
size memslot array based on number of used slots") eliminated the "all
possible slots allocated" condition and made the bug embarrasingly easy
to hit.
Fixes: 9c1a5d3878 ("kvm: optimize GFN to memslot lookup with large slots amount")
Reported-by: syzbot+d889b59b2bb87d4047a2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Message-Id: <20200408064059.8957-2-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Pull locking fixes from Thomas Gleixner:
"Three small fixes/updates for the locking core code:
- Plug a task struct reference leak in the percpu rswem
implementation.
- Document the refcount interaction with PID_MAX_LIMIT
- Improve the 'invalid wait context' data dump in lockdep so it
contains all information which is required to decode the problem"
* tag 'locking-urgent-2020-04-12' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
locking/lockdep: Improve 'invalid wait context' splat
locking/refcount: Document interaction with PID_MAX_LIMIT
locking/percpu-rwsem: Fix a task_struct refcount
Merge yet more updates from Andrew Morton:
- Almost all of the rest of MM (memcg, slab-generic, slab, pagealloc,
gup, hugetlb, pagemap, memremap)
- Various other things (hfs, ocfs2, kmod, misc, seqfile)
* akpm: (34 commits)
ipc/util.c: sysvipc_find_ipc() should increase position index
kernel/gcov/fs.c: gcov_seq_next() should increase position index
fs/seq_file.c: seq_read(): add info message about buggy .next functions
drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c: fix platform_get_irq.cocci warnings
change email address for Pali Rohár
selftests: kmod: test disabling module autoloading
selftests: kmod: fix handling test numbers above 9
docs: admin-guide: document the kernel.modprobe sysctl
fs/filesystems.c: downgrade user-reachable WARN_ONCE() to pr_warn_once()
kmod: make request_module() return an error when autoloading is disabled
mm/memremap: set caching mode for PCI P2PDMA memory to WC
mm/memory_hotplug: add pgprot_t to mhp_params
powerpc/mm: thread pgprot_t through create_section_mapping()
x86/mm: introduce __set_memory_prot()
x86/mm: thread pgprot_t through init_memory_mapping()
mm/memory_hotplug: rename mhp_restrictions to mhp_params
mm/memory_hotplug: drop the flags field from struct mhp_restrictions
mm/special: create generic fallbacks for pte_special() and pte_mkspecial()
mm/vma: introduce VM_ACCESS_FLAGS
mm/vma: define a default value for VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS
...
devm_memremap_pages() is currently used by the PCI P2PDMA code to create
struct page mappings for IO memory. At present, these mappings are
created with PAGE_KERNEL which implies setting the PAT bits to be WB.
However, on x86, an mtrr register will typically override this and force
the cache type to be UC-. In the case firmware doesn't set this
register it is effectively WB and will typically result in a machine
check exception when it's accessed.
Other arches are not currently likely to function correctly seeing they
don't have any MTRR registers to fall back on.
To solve this, provide a way to specify the pgprot value explicitly to
arch_add_memory().
Of the arches that support MEMORY_HOTPLUG: x86_64, and arm64 need a
simple change to pass the pgprot_t down to their respective functions
which set up the page tables. For x86_32, set the page tables
explicitly using _set_memory_prot() (seeing they are already mapped).
For ia64, s390 and sh, reject anything but PAGE_KERNEL settings -- this
should be fine, for now, seeing these architectures don't support
ZONE_DEVICE.
A check in __add_pages() is also added to ensure the pgprot parameter
was set for all arches.
Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Eric Badger <ebadger@gigaio.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306170846.9333-7-logang@deltatee.com
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
