[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1538678069.230807.6.camel@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:34:29 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -Wswitch Clang warnings in drivers/scsi
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:30 -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Hi SCSI folks,
>
> In an effort to get the kernel building warning free with Clang, we've
> come across an interesting occurrence in a few scsi drivers:
>
> drivers/scsi/hpsa.c:6533:7: warning: overflow converting case value to switch condition type (2148024833 to 18446744071562609153) [-Wswitch]
> case CCISS_GETPCIINFO:
> ^
> ./include/uapi/linux/cciss_ioctl.h:65:26: note: expanded from macro 'CCISS_GETPCIINFO'
> #define CCISS_GETPCIINFO _IOR(CCISS_IOC_MAGIC, 1, cciss_pci_info_struct)
> ^
> ./include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h:86:28: note: expanded from macro '_IOR'
> #define _IOR(type,nr,size) _IOC(_IOC_READ,(type),(nr),(_IOC_TYPECHECK(size)))
> ^
> ./include/uapi/asm-generic/ioctl.h:70:2: note: expanded from macro '_IOC'
> (((dir) << _IOC_DIRSHIFT) | \
> ^
>
> I see this warning in drivers/scsi/hpsa.c and drivers/scsi/smartpqi/smartpqi_init.c
> on an arm64 allyesconfig build and it has also been reported in a couple of files in
> drivers/scsi/cxlflash.
>
> As the warning states, there is an overflow because the switch statement's value is of
> type int but the switch value is greater than INT_MAX. I did a brief sweep of the tree
> and it seems that all uses of _IOC in switch statement values either are small enough
> to fit into size int or the value is of size unsigned int.
>
> I am unsure of the implications of using a smaller _IOC value or converting all ioctls
> to expect a cmd of type unsigned int (especially since that has userspace implications)
> but I didn't see any negative ioctl commands. Some clarity and insight would be
> appreciated.
Have you verified how gcc compiles these switch statements? Maybe gcc supports
switch / case statements on integral types that are larger than an int?
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists