Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <f036d110-f43e-0787-fe77-86fa5d062b17@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 12:23:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] selftests/mm: fix "warning: expression which
 evaluates to zero..." in mlock2-tests.c
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230603021558.95299-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
 <20230603021558.95299-4-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <ZH4CvMFgu7IFFMwk@x1n>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZH4CvMFgu7IFFMwk@x1n>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jun 2023 19:23:47.3799
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c5a59ca0-2df3-4e6f-dcbf-08db65fa62bc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT065.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR12MB7818
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 6/5/23 08:43, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 07:15:50PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> The stop variable is a char*, and the code was assigning a char value to
>> it. This was generating a warning when compiling with clang.
>>
>> However, as both David and Peter pointed out, stop is not even used
>> after the problematic assignment to a char type. So just delete that
>> line entirely.
>>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c | 1 -
>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
>> index 11b2301f3aa3..80cddc0de206 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/mlock2-tests.c
>> @@ -50,7 +50,6 @@ static int get_vm_area(unsigned long addr, struct vm_boundaries *area)
>>   			printf("cannot parse /proc/self/maps\n");
>>   			goto out;
>>   		}
>> -		stop = '\0';
>>   
>>   		sscanf(line, "%lx", &start);
>>   		sscanf(end_addr, "%lx", &end);
> 
> I'd rather simply make it "*stop = '\0'", or as David suggested dropping
> stop completely when we're it (assumes that scanf() will always work with
> number ending with space ' ').

Actually it does not assume that. Rather, it follows the documented behavior
of strchr(3), which is:

     The strchr() and strrchr() functions return a pointer to the matched
     character or NULL if the character is not found. The terminating
     null byte is considered part of the string, so that if c is
     specified as '\0', these functions return a pointer to the
     terminator.

And we have this code now:

	stop = strchr(end_addr, ' ');
	if (!stop) {
		printf("cannot parse /proc/self/maps\n");
		goto out;
	}

So, either stop has a valid char* in it, or we goto out. There are no
fragile assumptions in there, as far as I can see anyway.

> 
> No strong opinion here, though.
> 

OK, I think it's kind of a flip of the coin whether to write this:

	stop = strchr(end_addr, ' ');
	if (!stop) {

or this:

	if (!strchr(end_addr, ' ')) {

So I'll just leave it as the first one, which (depending on the
day of the week) might read slightly clearer. :)


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA