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;
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:49:58 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/38] minmax: Add in_range() macro
Message-Id: <20230711084958.8fdbb0fc4f80c6d9bbaf0ca3@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZKy7FIhozutiOaSm@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230710204339.3554919-1-willy@infradead.org>
        <20230710204339.3554919-2-willy@infradead.org>
        <20230710161341.c8d6a8b2cbf57013bf6e0140@linux-foundation.org>
        <ZKy7FIhozutiOaSm@casper.infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 03:14:44 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 04:13:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * in_range - Determine if a value lies within a range.
> > > + * @val: Value to test.
> > > + * @start: First value in range.
> > > + * @len: Number of values in range.
> > > + *
> > > + * This is more efficient than "if (start <= val && val < (start + len))".
> > > + * It also gives a different answer if @start + @len overflows the size of
> > > + * the type by a sufficient amount to encompass @val.  Decide for yourself
> > > + * which behaviour you want, or prove that start + len never overflow.
> > > + * Do not blindly replace one form with the other.
> > > + */
> > > +#define in_range(val, start, len)					\
> > > +	sizeof(start) <= sizeof(u32) ? in_range32(val, start, len) :	\
> > > +		in_range64(val, start, len)
> > 
> > There's nothing here to prevent callers from passing a mixture of
> > 32-bit and 64-bit values, possibly resulting in truncation of `val' or
> > `len'.
> > 
> > Obviously caller is being dumb, but I think it's cost-free to check all
> > three of the arguments for 64-bitness?
> > 
> > Or do a min()/max()-style check for consistently typed arguments?
> 
> How about
> 
> #define in_range(val, start, len)					\
> 	(sizeof(val) | sizeof(start) | size(len)) <= sizeof(u32) ?	\
> 		in_range32(val, start, len) : in_range64(val, start, len)

It saves some typing ;)   sizeof(val+start+len)?  <no>