Re: [PATCH v2] err.h: allow IS_ERR_VALUE to handle properly more types

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:27:28 +0100 Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Current implementation of IS_ERR_VALUE works correctly only with
> following types:
> - unsigned long,
> - short, int, long.
> Other types are handled incorrectly either on 32-bit either on 64-bit
> either on both architectures.
> The patch fixes it by comparing argument with MAX_ERRNO casted
> to argument's type for unsigned types and comparing with zero for signed
> types. As a result all integer types bigger than char are handled properly.
> 
> I have analyzed usage of IS_ERR_VALUE using coccinelle and in about 35
> cases it is used incorrectly, ie it can hide errors depending of 32/64 bit
> architecture. Instead of fixing usage I propose to enhance the macro
> to cover more types.
> And just for the record: the macro is used 101 times with signed variables,
> I am not sure if it should be preferred over simple comparison "ret < 0",
> but the new version can do it as well.
> 
> And below list of detected potential errors:
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/err.h
> +++ b/include/linux/err.h
> @@ -18,7 +18,9 @@
>  
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  
> -#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)
> +#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) ((typeof(x))(-1) <= 0 \
> +				? unlikely((x) < 0) \
> +				: unlikely((x) >= (typeof(x))-MAX_ERRNO))
>  

hm, seems complicated.  Can we simply cast the value to long?

#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) ((long)x < 0) && (long)x >= (long)-MAX_ERRNO)

and simplify that to

#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) ((unsigned long)(long)x >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)

or something like that.