Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:17:50 -0600 From: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: head -r356640 and mixed signed/unsigned comparisons Message-ID: <20200113091750.4a02b428@titan.knownspace> In-Reply-To: <18622739-BB2E-432B-B877-2FBE3A9D4ECB@yahoo.com> References: <18622739-BB2E-432B-B877-2FBE3A9D4ECB.ref@yahoo.com> <18622739-BB2E-432B-B877-2FBE3A9D4ECB@yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:28:22 -0800
Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The code:
>
> 394 for (j = 0; j < addr_cells - 1; j++) {
>
> looks wrong to me. Evidence follows.
>
> /usr/src/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h:typedef uint32_t pcell_t;
> /usr/include/sys/_stdint.h:typedef __uint32_t
> uint32_t; /usr/include/machine/_types.h:typedef unsigned int
> __uint32_t;
>
> So pcell_t and int are of the same rank but different
> unsigned vs. signed status.
>
> From sys/powerpc/mpc85xx/lbc.c :
>
> 363 static int
> 364 fdt_lbc_reg_decode(phandle_t node, struct lbc_softc *sc,
> 365 struct lbc_devinfo *di)
> 366 {
> . . .
> 369 pcell_t addr_cells, size_cells;
> . . .
> 371 int i, j, rv, bank;
> . . .
> 394 for (j = 0; j < addr_cells - 1; j++) {
> 395 start <<= 32;
> 396 start |= reg[j];
> 397 }
>
> So, for line 394, after the usual arithmetic
> conversions for the "-" and then for the "<"
> the line would look like (consolidating
> some relevant material to be more
> textually-local for ease of comparison):
>
> for (int j = 0; (unsigned int)j < addr_cells-1u; j++)
>
> For addr_cells==0u: addr_cells-1u == UINT_MAX .
>
> So, for addr_cells==0u substituted (at run-time):
>
> for (int j = 0; (unsigned int)j < UINT_MAX; j++)
>
> So, unless it is guaranteed that 0u<addr_cells,
> there would appear to be a looping problem here.
>
> It appears to me that the condition:
>
> addr_cells==0u && 0u<size_cells
>
> would fail the tuples <= 0 test and so continue
> on to try to use line 394.
>
> But I do not have context to know the
> condition would be a worrisome issue.
The only way addr_cells and size_cells can be zero is if the device
tree explicitly has #address-cells = <0> and #size-cells = <0>. It's
not impossible, but it's not reasonable, and violates the requirements
of the node.
It doesn't hurt to add checks, but it's not a priority either.
- Justin
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200113091750.4a02b428>