On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 07:23 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 19:45 +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> > > The header field in struct pd_message is declared as an __le16 type. The
> > > data in the message is supposed to be little endian. This means we don't
> > > have to go and shift the individual bytes into position when we're
> > > filling the buffer, we can just copy the contents right away. As an
> > > added benefit we don't get fishy results on big endian systems anymore.
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> > There are several instances of this class of error.
> >
> > Here's a cocci script to find them.
> >
> > This is best used with cocci's --all-includes option like:
> >
> > $ spatch --all-includes --very-quiet --sp-file lebe_bitshifts.cocci .
> > [ many defects...]
Probably would have been better as [ many possible defects... ]
> > $ cat lebe_bitshifts.cocci
> > @@
> > typedef __le16, __le32, __le64, __be16, __be32, __be64;
> > { __le16, __le32, __le64, __be16, __be32, __be64 } a;
> > expression b;
> > @@
> >
> > * a << b
[etc...]
> Is this always a problem?
No, not always.
If the CPU is the equivalent endian, the bitshift is fine.
It can't be known if the code is only compiled on a
single cpu type. It is rather odd though to use endian
notation if the code is compiled for a single cpu type.
> Would it be useful to add this to the scripts
> in the kernel?
Maybe.
btw: is there a way for the operators to be surrounded by
some \( \| \) or some other bracket style so it could
be written with a single test?
Something like:
@@
typedef __le16, __le32, __le64, __be16, __be32, __be64;
{ __le16, __le32, __le64, __be16, __be32, __be64 } a;
expression b;
@@
* a [<<|<<=|>>|>>=] b
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
