Re: [PATCH 2/3] kstrtox: add unit tests for memparse_safe()
From: Yujie Liu
Date: Mon Jan 01 2024 - 20:38:24 EST
On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 06:07:40PM +1030, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2023/12/26 17:06, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hi Qu,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on kdave/for-next]
> > [also build test WARNING on akpm-mm/mm-everything linus/master v6.7-rc7 next-20231222]
> > [cannot apply to akpm-mm/mm-nonmm-unstable]
> > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
> >
> > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Qu-Wenruo/kstrtox-introduce-a-safer-version-of-memparse/20231225-151921
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git for-next
> > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/56ea15d8b430f4fe3f8e55509ad0bc72b1d9356f.1703324146.git.wqu%40suse.com
> > patch subject: [PATCH 2/3] kstrtox: add unit tests for memparse_safe()
> > config: m68k-randconfig-r133-20231226 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231226/202312261423.zqIlU2hn-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config)
> > compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0
> > reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231226/202312261423.zqIlU2hn-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce)
> >
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312261423.zqIlU2hn-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
> > > > lib/test-kstrtox.c:339:40: sparse: sparse: cast truncates bits from constant value (efefefef7a7a7a7a becomes 7a7a7a7a)
> > lib/test-kstrtox.c:351:39: sparse: sparse: cast truncates bits from constant value (efefefef7a7a7a7a becomes 7a7a7a7a)
>
> Any way to suppress the warning? As long as the constant value (u64) is
> checked against the same truncated value (u32), the result should be fine.
Hi Qu, we've suppressed this warning in the bot for the specific file
lib/test-kstrtox.c, while keep it enabled for the rest. If there are
similar warnings in other files that could be false positives, we will
also suppress them later.
Thanks,
Yujie
>
> I really want to make sure the pointer is not incorrectly updated in the
> failure case.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
> >
> > vim +339 lib/test-kstrtox.c
> >
> > 275
> > 276 /* Want to include "E" suffix for full coverage. */
> > 277 #define MEMPARSE_TEST_SUFFIX (MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_K | MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_M |\
> > 278 MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_G | MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_T |\
> > 279 MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_P | MEMPARSE_SUFFIX_E)
> > 280
> > 281 static void __init test_memparse_safe_fail(void)
> > 282 {
> > 283 struct memparse_test_fail {
> > 284 const char *str;
> > 285 /* Expected error number, either -EINVAL or -ERANGE. */
> > 286 unsigned int expected_ret;
> > 287 };
> > 288 static const struct memparse_test_fail tests[] __initconst = {
> > 289 /* No valid string can be found at all. */
> > 290 {"", -EINVAL},
> > 291 {"\n", -EINVAL},
> > 292 {"\n0", -EINVAL},
> > 293 {"+", -EINVAL},
> > 294 {"-", -EINVAL},
> > 295
> > 296 /*
> > 297 * No support for any leading "+-" chars, even followed by a valid
> > 298 * number.
> > 299 */
> > 300 {"-0", -EINVAL},
> > 301 {"+0", -EINVAL},
> > 302 {"-1", -EINVAL},
> > 303 {"+1", -EINVAL},
> > 304
> > 305 /* Stray suffix would also be rejected. */
> > 306 {"K", -EINVAL},
> > 307 {"P", -EINVAL},
> > 308
> > 309 /* Overflow in the string itself*/
> > 310 {"18446744073709551616", -ERANGE},
> > 311 {"02000000000000000000000", -ERANGE},
> > 312 {"0x10000000000000000", -ERANGE},
> > 313
> > 314 /*
> > 315 * Good string but would overflow with suffix.
> > 316 *
> > 317 * Note, for "E" suffix, one should not use with hex, or "0x1E"
> > 318 * would be treated as 0x1e (30 in decimal), not 0x1 and "E" suffix.
> > 319 * Another reason "E" suffix is cursed.
> > 320 */
> > 321 {"16E", -ERANGE},
> > 322 {"020E", -ERANGE},
> > 323 {"16384P", -ERANGE},
> > 324 {"040000P", -ERANGE},
> > 325 {"16777216T", -ERANGE},
> > 326 {"0100000000T", -ERANGE},
> > 327 {"17179869184G", -ERANGE},
> > 328 {"0200000000000G", -ERANGE},
> > 329 {"17592186044416M", -ERANGE},
> > 330 {"0400000000000000M", -ERANGE},
> > 331 {"18014398509481984K", -ERANGE},
> > 332 {"01000000000000000000K", -ERANGE},
> > 333 };
> > 334 unsigned int i;
> > 335
> > 336 for_each_test(i, tests) {
> > 337 const struct memparse_test_fail *t = &tests[i];
> > 338 unsigned long long tmp = ULL_PATTERN;
> > > 339 char *retptr = (char *)ULL_PATTERN;
> > 340 int ret;
> > 341
> > 342 ret = memparse_safe(t->str, MEMPARSE_TEST_SUFFIX, &tmp, &retptr);
> > 343 if (ret != t->expected_ret) {
> > 344 WARN(1, "str '%s', expected ret %d got %d\n", t->str,
> > 345 t->expected_ret, ret);
> > 346 continue;
> > 347 }
> > 348 if (tmp != ULL_PATTERN)
> > 349 WARN(1, "str '%s' failed as expected, but result got modified",
> > 350 t->str);
> > 351 if (retptr != (char *)ULL_PATTERN)
> > 352 WARN(1, "str '%s' failed as expected, but pointer got modified",
> > 353 t->str);
> > 354 }
> > 355 }
> > 356
> >
>