A new warning in clang points out a use of bitwise OR with boolean
expressions in this driver:
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
||
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
1 error generated.
This should clearly be a logical OR so change it to fix the warning.
Fixes: fe98a52ce754 ("ACPI: thinkpad-acpi: add sysfs support to fan subdriver")
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1476
Reported-by: Tor Vic <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>
---
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
index 07b9710d500e..7442c3bb446a 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
@@ -9058,7 +9058,7 @@ static int fan_write_cmd_level(const char *cmd, int *rc)
if (strlencmp(cmd, "level auto") == 0)
level = TP_EC_FAN_AUTO;
- else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
+ else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) ||
(strlencmp(cmd, "level full-speed") == 0))
level = TP_EC_FAN_FULLSPEED;
else if (sscanf(cmd, "level %d", &level) != 1)
base-commit: 85303db36b6e170917a7bc6aae4898c31a5272a0
--
2.33.1.637.gf443b226ca
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:26 AM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A new warning in clang points out a use of bitwise OR with boolean
> expressions in this driver:
>
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ||
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
> 1 error generated.
>
> This should clearly be a logical OR so change it to fix the warning.
>
> Fixes: fe98a52ce754 ("ACPI: thinkpad-acpi: add sysfs support to fan subdriver")
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1476
> Reported-by: Tor Vic <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>
LGTM, thanks for the patch! I guess this would be the first
"interesting" case this warning has found in kernel sources?
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> index 07b9710d500e..7442c3bb446a 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> @@ -9058,7 +9058,7 @@ static int fan_write_cmd_level(const char *cmd, int *rc)
>
> if (strlencmp(cmd, "level auto") == 0)
> level = TP_EC_FAN_AUTO;
> - else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
> + else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) ||
> (strlencmp(cmd, "level full-speed") == 0))
> level = TP_EC_FAN_FULLSPEED;
> else if (sscanf(cmd, "level %d", &level) != 1)
>
> base-commit: 85303db36b6e170917a7bc6aae4898c31a5272a0
> --
> 2.33.1.637.gf443b226ca
>
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:34 AM Nick Desaulniers
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> LGTM, thanks for the patch! I guess this would be the first
> "interesting" case this warning has found in kernel sources?
The patch looks obviously correct (tm), but I'm not convinced that the
warning is actually all that interesting.
The thing is, using bitwise operators for booleans is _exactly_ the
same as using logical ones as long as there are no side effects. In
fact, any compiler worth its salt will already convert some cases
between the two as an optimization just as part of code generation.
Of course, that "as long as there are no side effects" is the big
thing - then the short-circuiting of the actual logical operations
clearly matters. But that wasn't actually the case in this situation
(or in the kvm situation elsewhere).
So in both of these cases, the difference between "|" and "||" ends up
purely being a hint to the compiler.
In this case, even if there are no side effects, it's clearly
pointless to do the second strlencmp() if the first one already
matched, and the "||" is unquestionably the right hint (and honestly,
most compilers probably wouldn't even be able to tell "no side
effects" because it's a fairly complex expression - but since it's
inlined and uses compiler intrinsics, the compiler _might_ actually be
able to see that the two are equivalent).
But no, I don't think that warning is very interesting. In fact, the
warning might be overall detrimental, in case the hints were
intentional (like the kvm case - although I'm not convinced the kvm
hinting was actually meaningful).
Linus
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:41 PM Linus Torvalds
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:34 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > LGTM, thanks for the patch! I guess this would be the first
> > "interesting" case this warning has found in kernel sources?
>
> The patch looks obviously correct (tm), but I'm not convinced that the
> warning is actually all that interesting.
>
> The thing is, using bitwise operators for booleans is _exactly_ the
> same as using logical ones as long as there are no side effects.
Right, the patch that added the warning explicitly checks for side effects.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108003
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
is another example that I would point to in favor of the error.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Nick Desaulniers
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Right, the patch that added the warning explicitly checks for side effects.
Well, it's a bit questionable. The "side effects" are things like any
pointer dereference, because it could fault, but if you know that
isn't an issue, then clang basically ends up complaining about code
that is perfectly fine. Maybe it was written that way on purpose, like
the kvm code.
Now, it's probably not worth keeping that "bitops of booleans" logic -
if it is a noticeable optimization, it's generally something that the
compiler should do for us, but basically clang is warning about
perfectly valid code.
And what I find absolutely disgusting is the suggested "fix" that
clang gives you.
If the warning said "maybe you meant to use a logical or (||)", then
that would be one thing. But what clang suggests as the "fix" for the
warning is just bad coding practice.
If a warning fix involves making the code uglier, then the warning fix is wrong.
This is not the first time we've had compilers suggesting garbage. Gcc
used to suggest (perhaps still does) the "extra parenthesis" for
"assignment used as a truth value" situation. Which is - once again -
disgusting garbage.
Writing code like
if (a = b) ..
is bad and error prone. But the suggestion to "fix" the warning with
if ((a = b)) ..
is just completely unacceptably stupid, and is just BAD CODE.
The proper fix might be to write it like
if ((a = b) != 0) ...
which at least makes the truth value part explicit - in ways that a
silly double parenthesis does not. Or, better yet, write it as
a = b;
if (a) ..
instead, which is legible and fine.
The clang suggestion to add a cast to 'int' to avoid the warning is
the same kind of "write bad code" suggestion. Just don't do it.
Linus
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:38:09PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Right, the patch that added the warning explicitly checks for side effects.
>
> Well, it's a bit questionable. The "side effects" are things like any
> pointer dereference, because it could fault, but if you know that
> isn't an issue, then clang basically ends up complaining about code
> that is perfectly fine. Maybe it was written that way on purpose, like
> the kvm code.
>
> Now, it's probably not worth keeping that "bitops of booleans" logic -
> if it is a noticeable optimization, it's generally something that the
> compiler should do for us, but basically clang is warning about
> perfectly valid code.
>
> And what I find absolutely disgusting is the suggested "fix" that
> clang gives you.
>
> If the warning said "maybe you meant to use a logical or (||)", then
> that would be one thing. But what clang suggests as the "fix" for the
> warning is just bad coding practice.
For what it's worth, the suggested fix is the '||' underneath the
warning text:
In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
||
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
1 error generated.
Perhaps that hint should also be added to the warning text, like:
In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands; did you mean logical '||'? [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
||
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
1 error generated.
It is late for me but I can push that change to the clang developers and
see what they think tomorrow if that would help?
Cheers,
Nathan
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:00 PM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, the suggested fix is the '||' underneath the
> warning text:
>
> In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ||
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
> 1 error generated.
Hmm. That's not at all obvious.
The *much* bigger part is that
note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
which is what I'm complaining about. That note should die. It should
say "maybe you meant to use a logical or" or something like that.
> Perhaps that hint should also be added to the warning text, like:
>
> In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands; did you mean logical '||'? [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ||
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
I don't understand why you seem to continue to ignore the "note"
message, which makes a completely crazy suggestion.
Linus
Hi,
On 10/18/21 20:25, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> A new warning in clang points out a use of bitwise OR with boolean
> expressions in this driver:
>
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ||
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c:9061:11: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
> 1 error generated.
>
> This should clearly be a logical OR so change it to fix the warning.
>
> Fixes: fe98a52ce754 ("ACPI: thinkpad-acpi: add sysfs support to fan subdriver")
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1476
> Reported-by: Tor Vic <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]>
Thank you for your patch, I've applied this patch to my review-hans
branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans
Note it will show up in my review-hans branch once I've pushed my
local branch there, which might take a while.
Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be
added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually
will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next
merge-window.
Regards,
Hans
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> index 07b9710d500e..7442c3bb446a 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> @@ -9058,7 +9058,7 @@ static int fan_write_cmd_level(const char *cmd, int *rc)
>
> if (strlencmp(cmd, "level auto") == 0)
> level = TP_EC_FAN_AUTO;
> - else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) |
> + else if ((strlencmp(cmd, "level disengaged") == 0) ||
> (strlencmp(cmd, "level full-speed") == 0))
> level = TP_EC_FAN_FULLSPEED;
> else if (sscanf(cmd, "level %d", &level) != 1)
>
> base-commit: 85303db36b6e170917a7bc6aae4898c31a5272a0
>
Trimming up the replies as we are not really talking about the x86
platform drivers warning anymore.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:27:02PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:00 PM Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, the suggested fix is the '||' underneath the
> > warning text:
> >
> > In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> > return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ||
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
> > 1 error generated.
>
> Hmm. That's not at all obvious.
I agree, hence the question added to the warning.
> The *much* bigger part is that
>
> note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
>
> which is what I'm complaining about. That note should die. It should
> say "maybe you meant to use a logical or" or something like that.
>
> > Perhaps that hint should also be added to the warning text, like:
> >
> > In file included from arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.c:5:
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: error: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands; did you mean logical '||'? [-Werror,-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
> > return __is_bad_mt_xwr(rsvd_check, spte) |
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ||
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h:318:9: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
>
> I don't understand why you seem to continue to ignore the "note"
> message, which makes a completely crazy suggestion.
Sorry, I was not intentionally ignoring the note. As far as I understand
it, it is fairly common for clang to offer a fix up in case the answer
to the question of "did you mean to do this?" is "no" but also offer a
way to shut the warning up in case the answer is "yes, I know what I am
doing", hence the note about casting.
Changing to logical OR is not always the answer, as something like
int a, b, c;
changed = foo(&a) | foo(&b) | foo(&c);
if (changed)
bar(a, b, c);
no longer works. It could be changed to
int a, b, c;
changed = foo(&a);
changed |= foo(&b);
changed |= foo(&c);
if (changed)
baz(a, b, c);
to make it clearer to both humans and the compiler that every call to
foo() needs to happen and the results are being aggregated. With that,
perhaps the note could be changed to something like:
note: separate expressions with '|=' to silence this warning
Although, that would require that the expression was being assigned to a
variable, rather than being returned or used in a loop like the KVM one
or this other one that is seen in fs/namei.c on big endian ARM
configurations with CONFIG_DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS because has_zero() returns
bool instead of unsigned long on little endian architectures:
fs/namei.c:2149:13: warning: use of bitwise '|' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
} while (!(has_zero(a, &adata, &constants) | has_zero(b, &bdata, &constants)));
~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
||
fs/namei.c:2149:13: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
1 warning generated.
Perhaps the note should just be eliminated entirely so that developers
can be left to try and figure out a way to silence it on their own or
just rework the code to use logical OR or not use boolean types, I do
not know.
There was some discussion upstream around how the warning should be
silenced during the warning's creation. I have added the author of the
warning, David, to this thread to see if he has any insights.
David, you can see the start of this thread here and follow along with
the threading at the bottom:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=wi7hUsTTcmPfZCkUEw51Y3ayq3JJxzFsNgodsxxDyk9Ww@mail.gmail.com/
Cheers,
Nathan