hmm...
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:48 PM kernel test robot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Gilad-Ben-Yossef/add-optional-cache-params-from-DT/20200916-152151
> base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git master
> config: arm64-randconfig-r015-20200916 (attached as .config)
> compiler: clang version 12.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 9e3842d60351f986d77dfe0a94f76e4fd895f188)
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
> chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> # install arm64 cross compiling tool for clang build
> # apt-get install binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu
> # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross ARCH=arm64
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
>
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> drivers/crypto/ccree/cc_driver.c:120:18: warning: result of comparison of constant 18446744073709551615 with expression of type 'u32' (aka 'unsigned int') is always false [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
> cache_params |= FIELD_PREP(mask, val);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/bitfield.h:94:3: note: expanded from macro 'FIELD_PREP'
> __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/bitfield.h:52:28: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) > (typeof(_reg))~0ull, \
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/build_bug.h:39:58: note: expanded from macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:319:22: note: expanded from macro 'compiletime_assert'
> _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:307:23: note: expanded from macro '_compiletime_assert'
> __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/compiler_types.h:299:9: note: expanded from macro '__compiletime_assert'
> if (!(condition)) \
> ^~~~~~~~~
I am unable to understand this warning. It looks like it is
complaining about a FIELD_GET sanity check that is always false, which
makes sense since we're using a constant.
Anyone can enlighten me if I've missed something?
Thanks,
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
values of β will give rise to dom!
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:20 AM Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> hmm...
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:48 PM kernel test robot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Gilad-Ben-Yossef/add-optional-cache-params-from-DT/20200916-152151
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git master
> > config: arm64-randconfig-r015-20200916 (attached as .config)
> > compiler: clang version 12.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 9e3842d60351f986d77dfe0a94f76e4fd895f188)
> > reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
> > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
> > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
> > # install arm64 cross compiling tool for clang build
> > # apt-get install binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross ARCH=arm64
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > >> drivers/crypto/ccree/cc_driver.c:120:18: warning: result of comparison of constant 18446744073709551615 with expression of type 'u32' (aka 'unsigned int') is always false [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
> > cache_params |= FIELD_PREP(mask, val);
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/bitfield.h:94:3: note: expanded from macro 'FIELD_PREP'
> > __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/bitfield.h:52:28: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) > (typeof(_reg))~0ull, \
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/build_bug.h:39:58: note: expanded from macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(cond, msg) compiletime_assert(!(cond), msg)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h:319:22: note: expanded from macro 'compiletime_assert'
> > _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h:307:23: note: expanded from macro '_compiletime_assert'
> > __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > include/linux/compiler_types.h:299:9: note: expanded from macro '__compiletime_assert'
> > if (!(condition)) \
> > ^~~~~~~~~
>
> I am unable to understand this warning. It looks like it is
> complaining about a FIELD_GET sanity check that is always false, which
> makes sense since we're using a constant.
>
> Anyone can enlighten me if I've missed something?
Looked at some of this code recently. I think it may have an issue
for masks where sizeof(mask) < sizeof(unsigned long long).
In your code, via 0day bot:
107 u32 cache_params, ace_const, val, mask;
...
> 120 cache_params |= FIELD_PREP(mask, val);
then in include/linux/bitfield.h, we have:
92 #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) \
93 ({ \
94 __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
44 #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
...
52 BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) > (typeof(_reg))~0ull, \
53 _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
so the 0ULL in FIELD_PREP is important. In __BF_FIELD_CHECK, the
typeof(_reg) is unsigned long long (because 0ULL was passed). So we
have a comparison between a u32 and a u64; indeed any u32 can never be
greater than a u64 that we know has the value of ULLONG_MAX.
I did send a series splitting these up, I wonder if they'd help here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:39 PM Nick Desaulniers
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:20 AM Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
...
> >
> > I am unable to understand this warning. It looks like it is
> > complaining about a FIELD_GET sanity check that is always false, which
> > makes sense since we're using a constant.
> >
> > Anyone can enlighten me if I've missed something?
>
> Looked at some of this code recently. I think it may have an issue
> for masks where sizeof(mask) < sizeof(unsigned long long).
>
> In your code, via 0day bot:
>
> 107 u32 cache_params, ace_const, val, mask;
> ...
> > 120 cache_params |= FIELD_PREP(mask, val);
>
> then in include/linux/bitfield.h, we have:
>
> 92 #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) \
> 93 ({ \
> 94 __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
>
> 44 #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
> ...
> 52 BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) > (typeof(_reg))~0ull, \
> 53 _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>
> so the 0ULL in FIELD_PREP is important. In __BF_FIELD_CHECK, the
> typeof(_reg) is unsigned long long (because 0ULL was passed). So we
> have a comparison between a u32 and a u64; indeed any u32 can never be
> greater than a u64 that we know has the value of ULLONG_MAX.
>
> I did send a series splitting these up, I wonder if they'd help here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> --
Thanks!
This indeed explains this. It seems there is nothing for me to do
about it in the driver code though, as it seems the issue is in the
macro and you have already posted a fix for it.
Thanks again,
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker
values of β will give rise to dom!