Re: endian bitshift defects [ was: staging: fusb302: don't bitshift __le16 type ]

[Julia Lawall]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Frans Klaver wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 07:37:28PM -0400, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, Frans Klaver wrote:
> >
> > > Hm. For some reason the great mail filtering scheme decided to push
> > > this past my inbox :-/
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 19:45 +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> > > >> The header field in struct pd_message is declared as an __le16 type. The
> > > >> data in the message is supposed to be little endian. This means we don't
> > > >> have to go and shift the individual bytes into position when we're
> > > >> filling the buffer, we can just copy the contents right away. As an
> > > >> added benefit we don't get fishy results on big endian systems anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing this out.
> > > >
> > > > There are several instances of this class of error.
> > >
> > > There are other smells around __(le|be) types that show up in staging
> > > that might be worth checking in the rest of the kernel as well. e.g.
> > > converting to cpu and storing it back into itself (possibly with its
> > > bytes reversed), direct assignments without conversion and what else
> > > you might have. sparse obviously already flags anything fishy going on
> > > with these types, but cannot distinguish between the classes of
> > > errors. I'll need to acquaint myself with spatch a bit more to be able
> > > to track that down.
> >
> > If you have concrete code examples, even fake ones, illustrating a class
> > of problem, then that would be great.
>
> Alright, I'll describe two fairly simple cases for starters.
>
> One class of issue that I have on top of mind is simply
>
> 	__le16 val;
>
> 	val = le16_to_cpu(val);
>
> The problem there obviously being that val is supposed to be guaranteed
> little endian. Sparse will throw a warning at this. It may also appear
> as (or be 'fixed' as)
>
> 	__le16 val;
>
> 	le16_to_cpus(val);
>
> Sparse doesn't flag this second version as an issue, while it causes the
> same problem. It is especially a potential problem when the value is
> stored in driver data.
>
> Another smell that is prevalent, at least in staging, is
>
> 	u16 in;
> 	u16 out;
>
> 	out = cpu_to_le16(in);
>
> or in one instance (drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c) I saw
>
> 	u64 tmp;
>
> 	*(u64*)dst = cpu_to_be64(tmp);
>
> Now these aren't necessarily problematic. Usually this typo of code is
> preparing the data to be sent out in a specific byte ordering, but again
> issues may arise if this specifically ordered data is stored somewhere.
>
> I'll leave it at that for now.

OK, thanks!

julia