Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231128075532.110251-1-haibo.li@mediatek.com>
 <20231128172238.f80ed8dd74ab2a13eba33091@linux-foundation.org>
 <CA+fCnZcLwXn6crGF1E1cY3TknMaUN=H8-_hp0-cC+s8-wj95PQ@mail.gmail.com> <ecf38b22-ee64-41e5-b9b5-c32fc1cb57bc@moroto.mountain>
In-Reply-To: <ecf38b22-ee64-41e5-b9b5-c32fc1cb57bc@moroto.mountain>
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:31:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+fCnZc73qNqNiCMcKFKRuoBki=Bmhdw-mOY9chV=CjAtm0R+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix comparison of unsigned expression < 0
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc:     "Liu, Yujie" <yujie.liu@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Haibo Li <haibo.li@mediatek.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, xiaoming.yu@mediatek.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:12=E2=80=AFAM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.=
org> wrote:
>
> > But I actually don't think we need to fix anything here.
> >
> > This issue looks quite close to a similar comparison with 0 issue
> > Linus shared his opinion on here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Pine.LNX.4.58.0411230958260.20993@ppc970.os=
dl.org/
> >
> > I don't know if the common consensus with the regard to issues like
> > that changed since then. But if not, perhaps we can treat this kernel
> > test robot report as a false positive.
>
> I would say that the consensus has changed somewhere around 2015 or
> so.  Unsigned comparisons to zero used to be one of the most common
> types of bugs in new code but now almost all subsystems have turned on
> the GCC warning for this.
>
> However, this is a Smatch warning and I agree with Linus on this.  For
> example, Smatch doesn't complain about the example code the Linus
> mentioned.
>
>         if (a < 0 || a > X)
>
> And in this case, it's a one liner fix for me to add KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET
> as an allowed macro and silence the warning.

Hi Dan,

If this sounds like a good idea to you, please add an exception.

From the KASAN side, I think adding an exception for this case makes sense.

Thank you!