On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 08:54, David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Stefan Hajnoczi
> > Sent: 04 December 2023 14:08
> >
> > Commit 4e0400525691 ("virtio-blk: support polling I/O") triggers the
> > following gcc 13 W=1 warnings:
> >
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c: In function ‘init_vq’:
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:1077:68: warning: ‘%d’ directive output may be
> > truncated writing between 1
> > and 11 bytes into a region of size 7 [-Wformat-truncation=]
> > 1077 | snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN,
> > "req_poll.%d", i);
> > |
> > ^~
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:1077:58: note: directive argument in the range
> > [-2147483648, 65534]
> > 1077 | snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN,
> > "req_poll.%d", i);
> > |
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:1077:17: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 11 and
> > 21 bytes into a destination
> > of size 16
> > 1077 | snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN,
> > "req_poll.%d", i);
> > |
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > This is a false positive because the lower bound -2147483648 is
> > incorrect. The true range of i is [0, num_vqs - 1] where 0 < num_vqs <
> > 65536.
> >
> > The code mixes int, unsigned short, and unsigned int types in addition
> > to using "%d" for an unsigned value. Use unsigned short and "%u"
> > consistently to solve the compiler warning.
> >
> > Cc: Suwan Kim <suwan.kim...@gmail.com>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com>
> > Closes:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312041509.diyvet9h-...@intel.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index d53d6aa8ee69..47556d8ccc32 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -1019,12 +1019,12 @@ static void virtblk_config_changed(struct
> > virtio_device *vdev)
> > static int init_vq(struct virtio_blk *vblk)
> > {
> > int err;
> > - int i;
> > + unsigned short i;
> > vq_callback_t **callbacks;
> > const char **names;
> > struct virtqueue **vqs;
> > unsigned short num_vqs;
> > - unsigned int num_poll_vqs;
> > + unsigned short num_poll_vqs;
> > struct virtio_device *vdev = vblk->vdev;
> > struct irq_affinity desc = { 0, };
> >
> > @@ -1068,13 +1068,13 @@ static int init_vq(struct virtio_blk *vblk)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < num_vqs - num_poll_vqs; i++) {
>
> Ugg doing arithmetic on char/short is likely to generate horrid
> code (especially on non-x86).
> Hint, there will be explicit masking and/or sign/zero extension.
>
> Even the array index might add extra code (although there'll be
> an explicit sign extend to 64bit with the current code).
>
> There really ought to be a better way to make gcc STFU.
>
> In this case 'unsigned int i' might be enough since gcc seems
> to have a small enough upper bound.
Sounds good, I'll send a v2 that uses unsigned int. The core virtio
code uses unsigned int for virtqueue indices too.
Stefan
>
> David
>
>
> > callbacks[i] = virtblk_done;
> > - snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN, "req.%d", i);
> > + snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN, "req.%u", i);
> > names[i] = vblk->vqs[i].name;
> > }
> >
> > for (; i < num_vqs; i++) {
> > callbacks[i] = NULL;
> > - snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN, "req_poll.%d", i);
> > + snprintf(vblk->vqs[i].name, VQ_NAME_LEN, "req_poll.%u", i);
> > names[i] = vblk->vqs[i].name;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1
> 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
