linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty/serial: digicolor: Fix bad usage of IS_ERR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:46:50 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
	kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty/serial: digicolor: Fix bad usage of IS_ERR_VALUE

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 06:37:46PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 07:26 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >On Tuesday 09 February 2016 07:08:59 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>IS_ERR_VALUE() assumes that its parameter is an unsigned long.
> >>It can not be used to check if an unsigned int reflects an error.
> >>Doing so can result in the following build warning.
> >>
> >>drivers/tty/serial/digicolor-usart.c: In function ‘digicolor_uart_probe’:
> >>include/linux/err.h:21:38: warning:
> >>         comparison is always false due to limited range of data type
> >>drivers/tty/serial/digicolor-usart.c:485:6: note:
> >>         in expansion of macro ‘IS_ERR_VALUE’
> >>
> >>If that warning is seen, an error return from platform_get_irq() is missed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The patch looks correct to me, but what compiler version and which kernel
> >tree is it that triggered the warning?
> >
> >Andrzej Hajda just modified the definition of IS_ERR_VALUE(), and the
> >changes are still under discussion, but I don't see that warning with
> >any of the versions.
> >
> I see it with gcc 5.1 and 5.2 (and W=1). I did not see / notice Andrzej's patch.
> 
> I agree that fixing the problem in IS_ERR_VALUE() is preferrable.

I disagree.  What happens if (eg) you decide to do this:

	u8 irq;

	irq = platform_get_irq(...);
	if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq))
		...

is that the fault of IS_ERR_VALUE() that it will never be true?  No, it's
a programming error in the caller, because the caller is using the wrong
type here - in fact, you can't do anything in IS_ERR_VALUE() to correct
that.

The same is true if you assign an error value to an unsigned int: the
problem is in the caller, not in IS_ERR_VALUE().

What would be preferable is if there was some way IS_ERR_VALUE() could
detect if it's used on something that isn't at least a short, and is
signed, but I suspect coccinelle can do that much better than trying to
work out some way to get the C compiler to check that.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.