netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: can: Fix compiling warning

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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:19:27 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, Mao Wenan <maowenan@...wei.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: can: Fix compiling warning

On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 01:50:42PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:41:44PM +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> > I compiled the code (the original version), but I do not get that "Should it
> > be static?" warning:
> > 
> > user@box:~/net-next$ make C=1
> >   CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> >   CALL    scripts/atomic/check-atomics.sh
> >   DESCEND  objtool
> >   CHK     include/generated/compile.h
> >   CHECK   net/can/af_can.c
> > ./include/linux/sched.h:609:43: error: bad integer constant expression
> > ./include/linux/sched.h:609:73: error: invalid named zero-width bitfield
> > `value'
> > ./include/linux/sched.h:610:43: error: bad integer constant expression
> > ./include/linux/sched.h:610:67: error: invalid named zero-width bitfield
> > `bucket_id'
> >   CC [M]  net/can/af_can.o
> 
> The sched.h errors suppress Sparse warnings so it's broken/useless now.
> The code looks like this:
> 
> include/linux/sched.h
>    613  struct uclamp_se {
>    614          unsigned int value              : bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
>    615          unsigned int bucket_id          : bits_per(UCLAMP_BUCKETS);
>    616          unsigned int active             : 1;
>    617          unsigned int user_defined       : 1;
>    618  };
> 
> bits_per() is zero and Sparse doesn't like zero sized bitfields.

I just noticed these sparse warnings too -- what's happening here? Are
they _supposed_ to be 0-width fields? It doesn't look like it to me:

CONFIG_UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT=5
...
#define UCLAMP_BUCKETS CONFIG_UCLAMP_BUCKETS_COUNT
...
        unsigned int bucket_id          : bits_per(UCLAMP_BUCKETS);

I would expect this to be 3 bits wide. ... Looks like gcc agrees:

struct uclamp_se {
    unsigned int               value:11;             /*     0: 0  4 */
    unsigned int               bucket_id:3;          /*     0:11  4 */
...

So this is a sparse issue?

-- 
Kees Cook