linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bitfield: use BUILD_BUG_ON

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:45:03 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        nbd@....name
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitfield: use BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO()

Umm, I really should've tested this :-)

As John points out, it can't possibly compile, e.g. because

> +#define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val)				\
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask)) +		\

this isn't actually a constant expression.

This would be harmless, since e.g.

> +	BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO((_mask) == 0) +				\

this already forces _mask to be a constant, but

> +	BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?			\
> +				~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : 0) + \

we can't actually replicate this check.

We could just remove this as well, at the expense of not getting any
warnings if you write something like

	FIELD_PREP(0xf, 32);

Realistically, FIELD_PREP() is the only one that makes sense in a pure
constant context though, so we could just add __FIELD_PREP for that,
*with* all the checks. I'll send out a patch in a second that has this
and also adds __{u,le,be}{16,32,64}encode_bits().

johannes