[linux-next:master 7391/10864] kernel/bpf/verifier.c:619 mark_stack_slot_scratched() warn: should '1 << spi' be a 64 bit type?

[linux-next:master 7391/10864] kernel/bpf/verifier.c:619 mark_stack_slot_scratched() warn: should '1 << spi' be a 64 bit type?

[Dan Carpenter]

tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
head:   7a769a3922d81cfc74ab4d90a9cc69485f260976
commit: 0f55f9ed21f96630c6ec96805d42f92c0b458b37 [7391/10864] bpf: Only print scratched registers and stack slots to verifier logs.
config: xtensa-randconfig-m031-20220105 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20220106/202201060848.nagWejwv-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: xtensa-linux-gcc (GCC) 11.2.0

If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

New smatch warnings:
kernel/bpf/verifier.c:619 mark_stack_slot_scratched() warn: should '1 << spi' be a 64 bit type?

vim +619 kernel/bpf/verifier.c

0f55f9ed21f9663 Christy Lee 2021-12-16  617  static void mark_stack_slot_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 spi)
0f55f9ed21f9663 Christy Lee 2021-12-16  618  {
0f55f9ed21f9663 Christy Lee 2021-12-16 @619  	env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1UL << spi;

Use 1ULL instead.

0f55f9ed21f9663 Christy Lee 2021-12-16  620  }

---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org

[PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Christy Lee]

env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
instead of UL literal values.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index bfb45381fb3f..a8587210907d 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static void mark_reg_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
 
 static void mark_stack_slot_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 spi)
 {
-	env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1UL << spi;
+	env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1ULL << spi;
 }
 
 static bool reg_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
@@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static bool verifier_state_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 static void mark_verifier_state_clean(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 {
 	env->scratched_regs = 0U;
-	env->scratched_stack_slots = 0UL;
+	env->scratched_stack_slots = 0ULL;
 }
 
 /* Used for printing the entire verifier state. */
 static void mark_verifier_state_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
 {
 	env->scratched_regs = ~0U;
-	env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0UL;
+	env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0ULL;
 }
 
 /* The reg state of a pointer or a bounded scalar was saved when
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Song Liu]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> wrote:
>
> env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> instead of UL literal values.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>

The fix looks good to me. Thus:

Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>

However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).

Thanks,
Song


> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index bfb45381fb3f..a8587210907d 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static void mark_reg_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
>
>  static void mark_stack_slot_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 spi)
>  {
> -       env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1UL << spi;
> +       env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1ULL << spi;
>  }
>
>  static bool reg_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
> @@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static bool verifier_state_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>  static void mark_verifier_state_clean(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>  {
>         env->scratched_regs = 0U;
> -       env->scratched_stack_slots = 0UL;
> +       env->scratched_stack_slots = 0ULL;
>  }
>
>  /* Used for printing the entire verifier state. */
>  static void mark_verifier_state_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>  {
>         env->scratched_regs = ~0U;
> -       env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0UL;
> +       env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0ULL;
>  }
>
>  /* The reg state of a pointer or a bounded scalar was saved when
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Christy Lee]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:52 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> > instead of UL literal values.
> >
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>
>
> The fix looks good to me. Thus:
>
> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
>
> However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
> long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).
>

I just checked that even with an absurdly long subject (more than 200
characters), ./scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't complain. It only complains
when the commit message body has longer than 75 characters but not the
subject line.  What's the maximum subject line length?

Christy

> Thanks,
> Song
>
>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index bfb45381fb3f..a8587210907d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static void mark_reg_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
> >
> >  static void mark_stack_slot_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 spi)
> >  {
> > -       env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1UL << spi;
> > +       env->scratched_stack_slots |= 1ULL << spi;
> >  }
> >
> >  static bool reg_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env, u32 regno)
> > @@ -637,14 +637,14 @@ static bool verifier_state_scratched(const struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  static void mark_verifier_state_clean(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  {
> >         env->scratched_regs = 0U;
> > -       env->scratched_stack_slots = 0UL;
> > +       env->scratched_stack_slots = 0ULL;
> >  }
> >
> >  /* Used for printing the entire verifier state. */
> >  static void mark_verifier_state_scratched(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >  {
> >         env->scratched_regs = ~0U;
> > -       env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0UL;
> > +       env->scratched_stack_slots = ~0ULL;
> >  }
> >
> >  /* The reg state of a pointer or a bounded scalar was saved when
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Song Liu]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:13 PM Christy Lee <christyc.y.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:52 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> > > instead of UL literal values.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>
> >
> > The fix looks good to me. Thus:
> >
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> >
> > However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
> > long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).
> >
>
> I just checked that even with an absurdly long subject (more than 200
> characters), ./scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't complain. It only complains
> when the commit message body has longer than 75 characters but not the
> subject line.  What's the maximum subject line length?

Hmm..  you are right. I somehow thought there was a limit by checkpatch.
I would personally limit it to 75 characters though.

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:12:58PM -0800, Christy Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:52 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> > > instead of UL literal values.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>
> >
> > The fix looks good to me. Thus:
> >
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> >
> > However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
> > long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).
> >
> 
> I just checked that even with an absurdly long subject (more than 200
> characters), ./scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't complain. It only complains
> when the commit message body has longer than 75 characters but not the
> subject line.  What's the maximum subject line length?
> 

People say 50 characters but that just seems more aspirational than
realistic.  This patch needs a subsystem prefix as well.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] Fix incorrect integer literal used for marking scratched registers in verifier logs

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:49 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:12:58PM -0800, Christy Lee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:52 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > env->scratched_stack_slots is a 64-bit value, we should use ULL
> > > > instead of UL literal values.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christy Lee <christylee@fb.com>
> > >
> > > The fix looks good to me. Thus:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
> > >
> > > However, the patch looks corrupted. Also, the subject is probably too
> > > long (./scripts/checkpatch.pl should complain about it).
> > >
> >
> > I just checked that even with an absurdly long subject (more than 200
> > characters), ./scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't complain. It only complains
> > when the commit message body has longer than 75 characters but not the
> > subject line.  What's the maximum subject line length?
> >
>
> People say 50 characters but that just seems more aspirational than
> realistic.  This patch needs a subsystem prefix as well.

I fixed patch subj and applied to bpf tree.
Thanks everyone.