On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 09:06:45AM -0300, Pedro Tammela wrote:
On 17/11/2023 06:31, Kunwu Chan wrote:
net/sched/cls_api.c:390:22: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)I don't believe there's something to fix here either
net/sched/cls_api.c:390:22: expected restricted __be16 [usertype] protocol
net/sched/cls_api.c:390:22: got unsigned int [usertype] protocol
Fixes: 33a48927c193 ("sched: push TC filter protocol creation into a separate function")
Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sched/cls_api.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
index 1976bd163986..f73f39f61f66 100644
--- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ static struct tcf_proto *tcf_proto_create(const char *kind, u32 protocol,
goto errout;
}
tp->classify = tp->ops->classify;
- tp->protocol = protocol;
+ tp->protocol = cpu_to_be16(protocol);
tp->prio = prio;
tp->chain = chain;
spin_lock_init(&tp->lock);
Hi Pedro and Kunwu,
I suspect that updating the byte order of protocol isn't correct
here - else I'd assume we would have seen a user-visible bug on
little-endian systems buy now.
But nonetheless I think there is a problem, which is that the appropriate
types aren't being used, which means the tooling isn't helping us wrt any
bugs that might subsequently be added or already lurking. So I think an
appropriate question is, what is the endien and width of protocol, and how
can we use an appropriate type throughout the call-path?