From:   Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-perf-use." <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        Michal Miroslaw <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] tools/testing/selftests/bpf: replace open-coded
 16 with TASK_COMM_LEN
References: <20211120112738.45980-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
        <20211120112738.45980-8-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
        <yt9d35nf1d84.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
        <CALOAHbDtqpkN4D0vHvGxTSpQkksMWtFm3faMy0n+pazxN_RPPg@mail.gmail.com>
        <yt9d35nfvy8s.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
        <54e1b56c-e424-a4b3-4d61-3018aa095f36@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:38:43 +0100
In-Reply-To: <54e1b56c-e424-a4b3-4d61-3018aa095f36@redhat.com> (David
        Hildenbrand's message of "Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:32:26 +0100")
Message-ID: <yt9dy257uivg.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
> On 29.11.21 15:21, Sven Schnelle wrote:
>> Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Thanks for the report and debugging!
>>> Seems we should explicitly define it as signed ?
>>> Could you pls. help verify it?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> index cecd4806edc6..44d36c6af3e1 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct task_group;
>>>   * Define the task command name length as enum, then it can be visible to
>>>   * BPF programs.
>>>   */
>>> -enum {
>>> +enum SignedEnum {
>>>         TASK_COMM_LEN = 16,
>>>  };
>> 
>> Umm no. What you're doing here is to define the name of the enum as
>> 'SignedEnum'. This doesn't change the type. I think before C++0x you
>> couldn't force an enum type.
>
> I think there are only some "hacks" to modify the type with GCC. For
> example, with "__attribute__((packed))" we can instruct GCC to use the
> smallest type possible for the defined enum values.

Yes, i meant no way that the standard defines. You could force it to
signed by having a negative member.

> I think with some fake entries one can eventually instruct GCC to use an
> unsigned type in some cases:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14635833/is-there-a-way-to-make-an-enum-unsigned-in-the-c90-standard-misra-c-2004-compl
>
> enum {
> 	TASK_COMM_LEN = 16,
> 	TASK_FORCE_UNSIGNED = 0x80000000,
> };
>
> Haven't tested it, though, and I'm not sure if we should really do that
> ... :)

TBH, i would vote for reverting the change. defining an array size as
enum feels really odd.

Regards
Sven