Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe: Fix NULL_RETURNS Coverity issue

["Ranbir Singh" <rsingh@ventanamicro.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7650 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:51 PM Kinney, Michael D <
michael.d.kinney@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Ranbir,
>
>
>
> First I want to recognize your efforts to collect Coverity issues and
> propose changes to address
>
> them.
>

Thanks Mike.


>
>
> I still disagree with adding CpuDealLoop() for any static analysis issues.
>

A bit of correction here.
CpuDeadLoop() is not exactly an addition for static analysis issues. For
that, the NULL pointer check and return statement in the if block are
sufficient.
However, CpuDeadLoop() is added as suggested by Laszlo to introduce a hang
behaviour in RELEASE builds as well when the situation is anyway not safe
to progress normally. That said, it may not still be required at every
point and hence needs to be assessed on a case to case basis.


>
> There have been previous discussions about adding a PANIC() or FATAL()
> macro that would
>
> perform platform specific actions if a condition is detected where the
> boot of the platform
>
> can not continue.  A platform get to make the choice to log or reboot or
> hang, etc.  Not the
>
> code that detected the condition.
>
>
>
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/86597
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, in order to fix some of these static analysis issues
> correctly, we are going
>
> to have to identify the use of ASSERT() that really is a fatal condition
> that can not continue
>
> and introduce an implementation approach that provides a platform handler
> and
>
> satisfies the static analysis tools.
>
>
>
> We also have to evaluate if a return error status with a DEBUG_ERROR
> message would be a better
>
> choice than an ASSERT() that can be filtered out by build options.
>

Note that the existing ASSERT will give a DEBUG message even when
CpuDeadLoop is added in the code later.


>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Generally speaking, there now seems to be different views coming from you
and Laszlo. We might have to wait for some sort of agreement to be reached.


>
>
> *From:* devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> * On Behalf Of *Ranbir
> Singh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 14, 2023 7:08 AM
> *To:* Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> *Cc:* devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Veeresh Sangolli <
> veeresh.sangolli@dellteam.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5]
> MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe: Fix NULL_RETURNS Coverity issue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 4:58 PM Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/10/23 07:11, Ranbir Singh wrote:
> > EFI_NOT_READY was listed as one of the error return values in the
> > function header of StartPciDevices(). So, I considered it here.
> >
> > Maybe we can go by a dual approach, including CpuDeadLoop() in
> > StartPciDevices() as well as add return value check at the call site in
> > PciBusDriverBindingStart().
>
> I don't think this makes much sense, given that execution is not
> supposed to continue past CpuDeadLoop(), so the new error check would
> not be reached.
>
> I think two options are realistic:
>
> - replace the assert() with a CpuDeadLoop() -- this is my preference
>
> - keep the assert, add the "if", and in the caller, handle the
> EFI_NOT_READY error. This is workable too. (Keeping the assert is goog
> because it shows that we don't expect the "if" to fire.)
>
> Anyway, now that we have no way to verify the change against Coverity, I
> don't know if this patch is worth the churn. :( As I said, this ASSERT()
> is one of those few justified ones in edk2 core that can indeed never
> fail, IMO.
>
> Laszlo
>
>
>
> See, Does the following change look acceptable to you ?
>
>
>
>     ASSERT (RootBridge != NULL);
> +  if (RootBridge == NULL) {
>
> +    CpuDeadLoop ();
> +    return EFI_NOT_READY;
> +  }
>
> +
>
>
>
> which retains the existing assert, adds the NULL pointer check and
> includes CpuDeadLoop () within the if block. As a result of CpuDeadLoop (),
> the return statement afterwards will never reach execution (=> no need to
> handle this return value at the call sites), but will satisfy static
> analysis tools as the "RootBridge" dereference scenario doesn't arise
> thereafter.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:18 PM Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com
> > <mailto:lersek@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 11/7/23 07:19, Ranbir Singh wrote:
> >     > From: Ranbir Singh <Ranbir.Singh3@Dell.com>
> >     >
> >     > The function StartPciDevices has a check
> >     >
> >     >     ASSERT (RootBridge != NULL);
> >     >
> >     > but this comes into play only in DEBUG mode. In Release mode, there
> >     > is no handling if the RootBridge value is NULL and the code
> proceeds
> >     > to unconditionally dereference "RootBridge" which will lead to
> CRASH.
> >     >
> >     > Hence, for safety add NULL pointer checks always and return
> >     > EFI_NOT_READY if RootBridge value is NULL which is one of the
> return
> >     > values as mentioned in the function description header.
> >     >
> >     > REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4239
> >     <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>
> >     >
> >     > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com <mailto:ray.ni@intel.com>>
> >     > Co-authored-by: Veeresh Sangolli <veeresh.sangolli@dellteam.com
> >     <mailto:veeresh.sangolli@dellteam.com>>
> >     > Signed-off-by: Ranbir Singh <Ranbir.Singh3@Dell.com>
> >     > Signed-off-by: Ranbir Singh <rsingh@ventanamicro.com
> >     <mailto:rsingh@ventanamicro.com>>
> >     > ---
> >     >  MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciDeviceSupport.c | 5 ++++-
> >     >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >     >
> >     > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciDeviceSupport.c
> >     b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciDeviceSupport.c
> >     > index 581e9075ad41..3de80d98370e 100644
> >     > --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciDeviceSupport.c
> >     > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciBusDxe/PciDeviceSupport.c
> >     > @@ -772,7 +772,10 @@ StartPciDevices (
> >     >    LIST_ENTRY     *CurrentLink;
> >     >
> >     >    RootBridge = GetRootBridgeByHandle (Controller);
> >     > -  ASSERT (RootBridge != NULL);
> >     > +  if (RootBridge == NULL) {
> >     > +    return EFI_NOT_READY;
> >     > +  }
> >     > +
> >     >    ThisHostBridge = RootBridge->PciRootBridgeIo->ParentHandle;
> >     >
> >     >    CurrentLink = mPciDevicePool.ForwardLink;
> >
> >     I don't think this is a good fix.
> >
> >     There is one call site, namely in PciBusDriverBindingStart(). That
> call
> >     site does not check the return value. (Of course /s)
> >
> >     I think that this ASSERT() can indeed never fail. Therefore I suggest
> >     CpuDeadLoop() instead.
> >
> >     If you insist that CpuDeadLoop() is "too risky" here, then the patch
> is
> >     acceptable, but then the StartPciDevices() call site in
> >     PciBusDriverBindingStart() must check the error properly: we must not
> >     install "gEfiPciEnumerationCompleteProtocolGuid", and the function
> must
> >     propagate the error outwards.
> >
> >     Laszlo
> >
>
> 
>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#111209): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/111209
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/102438320/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14653 bytes --]