linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Use ARRAY

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]

Message-ID: <Y1+YC5OuycA5hLFx@ubunlion>
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 15:10:27 +0530
From:   Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: fbtft: Use ARRAY_SIZE() to get argument count

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:41:40PM +0530, Deepak Varma wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 07:34:26PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 09:32:50AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 07:00:05PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > The ARRAY_SIZE(foo) macro should be preferred over sizeof operator
> > > > > based computation such as sizeof(foo)/sizeof(foo[0]) for finding
> > > > > number of elements in an array. Issue identified using coccicheck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h
> > > > > index 2c2b5f1c1df3..5506a473be91 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft.h
> > > > > @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ struct fbtft_par {
> > > > >  	bool polarity;
> > > > >  };
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define NUMARGS(...)  (sizeof((int[]){__VA_ARGS__}) / sizeof(int))
> > > > > +#define NUMARGS(...)  ARRAY_SIZE(((int[]){ __VA_ARGS__ }))
> > > >
> > > > Please please please test-build your patches before sending them out.
> > > > To not do so just wastes reviewer resources :(
> > >
> > > Hello Greg,
> > > I did build the .ko files by making the driver/staging/fbtft/ path. I verified
> > > .o and .ko files were built.
> > >
> > > I did a make clean just now and was again able to rebuild without any errors.
> > > Please see the attached log file.
> > >
> > > Is there something wrong with the way I am firing the build?
> >
> > The change is in the definition of a macro.  The compiler won't help you
> > in this case unless the macro is actually used in code that is compiled.
> > Find the uses and check for any nearby ifdefs.  For file foo.c you can
> > also do make foo.i to see the result of reducing ifdef and expanding
> > macros.  Then you can see if the code you changed is actually included in
> > the build.
>
> Okay. This is helpful. I understand. Looking into the file where the macro
> expansion is reported to be failed.

Hi Julia,
I could see the macro expansions in the .i files for the fbtft-core.c and
fb_hx8353d.c file. I am not sure why it built successfully on my x86 though. The
error in Kerbel bot seems to be specific to ARM arch. I will try that later
today. I am on the right track to the build error triage?

Also, while reviewing the macro expansion, I saw change in the computation that
seems odd to me. In the denominator of the expanded macro, there is a "+
((int)...." computation that I am not sure if is result of ARRAY_SIZE. I have
attached the old anf the new .i file diff for your review. If you get a change
could you help me understand why this additional computation is added to the
denominator?

Thank you,
./drv
>
> Thank you,
> ./drv
>
> >
> > julia
> >
>
>
>