Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1567330 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

Started byAugusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
First post2017-01-26 12:20 +0100
Last post2017-01-27 11:10 +0100
Articles 2 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid() Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 12:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid() Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 11:10 +0100

#1567330 — [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

FromAugusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-26 12:20 +0100
Subject[PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()
Message-ID<t3QfT-6DK-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In a 64bit system (where long is 64bit wide), even dividing LONG_MAX by
HZ will always be bigger than the max value that an int variable can
hold.

This has been detected by building the driver with W=1:

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c: In function ‘srp_tmo_valid’:
drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:92:19: warning: comparison is always
false due to limited range of data type [-Wtype-limits]
if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
                   ^

Signed-off-by: Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
index b87a786..d8c83f4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ int srp_tmo_valid(int reconnect_delay, int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
 	if (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 &&
 	    dev_loss_tmo > SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
+	if (dev_loss_tmo >= INT_MAX / HZ)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 && dev_loss_tmo >= 0 &&
 	    fast_io_fail_tmo >= dev_loss_tmo)
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1568003

FromAugusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
Date2017-01-27 11:10 +0100
Message-ID<t4bDI-2M6-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1567330
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bart Van Assche
<Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> wrote:
> This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
> is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
> overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
> dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?

Hi Bart,

    Right, now a I see...

    Doing your proposed change the warning go away...

    Do you want me to send a new patch for that?

-- 
Augusto Mecking Caringi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web