netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 09/12] net: dsa: tag_ocelot: create separate tagger for Seville

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: <20210215141521.GC2222@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:15:21 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     kbuild@...ts.01.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        lkp@...el.com, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/12] net: dsa: tag_ocelot: create separate
 tagger for Seville

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 03:19:31PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 04:00:04PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > db->index is less than db->num_ports which 32 or less but sometimes it
> > comes from the device tree so who knows.
> 
> The destination port mask is copied into a 12-bit field of the packet,
> starting at bit offset 67 and ending at 56:
> 
> static inline void ocelot_ifh_set_dest(void *injection, u64 dest)
> {
> 	packing(injection, &dest, 67, 56, OCELOT_TAG_LEN, PACK, 0);
> }
> 
> So this DSA tagging protocol supports at most 12 bits, which is clearly
> less than 32. Attempting to send to a port number > 12 will cause the
> packing() call to truncate way before there will be 32-bit truncation
> due to type promotion of the BIT(port) argument towards u64.
> 
> > The ocelot_ifh_set_dest() function takes a u64 though and that
> > suggests that BIT() should be changed to BIT_ULL().
> 
> I understand that you want to silence the warning, which fundamentally
> comes from the packing() API which works with u64 values and nothing of
> a smaller size. So I can send a patch which replaces BIT(port) with
> BIT_ULL(port), even if in practice both are equally fine.

I don't have a strong feeling about this...  Generally silencing
warnings just to make a checker happy is the wrong idea.

To be honest, I normally ignore these warnings.  But I have been looking
at them recently to try figure out if we could make it so it would only
generate a warning where "db->index" was known as possibly being in the
32-63 range.  So I looked at this one.

And now I see some ways that Smatch could have parsed this better...

regards,
dan carpenter