[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xd2m5vg9j.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:36:24 +0000
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Geyslan Gregório Bem <geyslan@...il.com>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, paulus@...ba.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, acme@...stprotocols.net,
kernel-br <kernel-br@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Coverity 1128445 - Reliance on integer endianness
Geyslan Gregório Bem <geyslan@...il.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Coverity detected in 'arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c' a
> possible reliance on integer endianness. Is that a positive one?
No, x86 is always little endian.
> static u64 ivt_uncore_irp_read_counter(struct intel_uncore_box *box,
> struct perf_event *event)
> 1369{
> 1370 struct pci_dev *pdev = box->pci_dev;
> 1371 struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> 1372 u64 count = 0;
> 1373
>
> CID 1128445 (#1 of 1): Reliance on integer endianness
> (INCOMPATIBLE_CAST)incompatible_cast: Pointer "&count" points to an
> object whose effective type is "unsigned long long" (64 bits,
> unsigned) but is dereferenced as a narrower "unsigned int" (32 bits,
> unsigned). This may lead to unexpected results depending on machine
> endianness.[show details]
>
> 1374 pci_read_config_dword(pdev, ivt_uncore_irp_ctrs[hwc->idx],
> (u32 *)&count);
> 1375 pci_read_config_dword(pdev, ivt_uncore_irp_ctrs[hwc->idx]
> + 4, (u32 *)&count + 1);
> 1376
> 1377 return count;
> 1378}
This looks intentional and correct apart from possible strict aliasing
issues.
--
Måns Rullgård
mans@...sr.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists