linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/mqueue: fix 5 warnings about signed/unsigned mismatches

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 10:14:05 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
 Valentin Obst <kernel@...entinobst.de>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mqueue: fix 5 warnings about signed/unsigned
 mismatches

On 07/05/2024 18:04, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/7/24 12:54 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 05/05/2024 23:13, John Hubbard wrote:
> ...
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/mq_perf_tests.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/mq_perf_tests.c
>>> index 5c16159d0bcd..fb898850867c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/mq_perf_tests.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mqueue/mq_perf_tests.c
>>> @@ -323,7 +323,8 @@ void *fake_cont_thread(void *arg)
>>>   void *cont_thread(void *arg)
>>>   {
>>>       char buff[MSG_SIZE];
>>> -    int i, priority;
>>> +    int i;
>>> +    unsigned int priority;
>>>         for (i = 0; i < num_cpus_to_pin; i++)
>>>           if (cpu_threads[i] == pthread_self())
>>> @@ -425,7 +426,8 @@ struct test test2[] = {
>>>   void *perf_test_thread(void *arg)
>>>   {
>>>       char buff[MSG_SIZE];
>>> -    int prio_out, prio_in;
>>> +    int prio_out;
>>
>> It feels a bit odd for prio_out and prio_in to have different types. I don't
>> have any prior familiararity with these tests but looks like they are ultimately
>> the parameters of mq_send() and mq_receive() which both define them as unsigned
>> ints. Perhaps both should be converted?
> 
> 
> This makes sense, and I recall wondering about it. Looking at it again,
> I see why didn't go that far: there is a mini-unit test manager inside,
> passing around priorities that are signed, throughout:
> 
>         struct test {
>             char *desc; void (*func)(int *);
>         };
> 
>         ...
> 
>         void inc_prio(int *prio) {
>             if (++*prio == mq_prio_max)
>                 *prio = 0;
>         }
> 
> However, I can probably fix up everything to match up. Given that you've
> called it out, I'll go ahead with that approach. Iit will be quite a few
> changes but they will all be trivial too.     

Ahh I see. It would certainly be an improvement, but if you don't think it's
worth the effort, then don't feel you need to do it on my account.

  
> 
> 
> thanks,