>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.olt...@nxp.com>
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 7:24 PM
>To: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.man...@nxp.com>
>Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org>; David S .
>Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] enetc: Avoid implicit sign extension
>
>On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:14:43PM +0300, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
>> Static analysis tool reports:
>> "Suspicious implicit sign extension - 'flags' with type u8 (8 bit,
>> unsigned) is promoted in 'flags' << 24 to type int (32 bits, signed),
>> then sign-extended to type unsigned long long (64 bits, unsigned).
>> If flags << 24 is greater than 0x7FFFFFFF, the upper bits of the result
>
>This is a backwards way of saying 'if flags & BIT(7) is set', no? But
>BIT(7) is ENETC_TXBD_FLAGS_F (the 'final BD' bit), and I've been testing
>SO_TXTIME with single BD frames, and haven't seen this problem.
>
Better be safe than sorry.
>> will all be 1."
>>
>> Use lower_32_bits() to avoid this scenario.
>>
>> Fixes: 82728b91f124 ("enetc: Remove Tx checksumming offload code")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.man...@nxp.com>
>> ---
>> v2 - added 'fixes' tag
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
>b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
>> index 00938f7960a4..07e03df8af94 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
>> @@ -535,8 +535,8 @@ static inline __le32 enetc_txbd_set_tx_start(u64
>tx_start, u8 flags)
>> {
>> u32 temp;
>>
>> - temp = (tx_start >> 5 & ENETC_TXBD_TXSTART_MASK) |
>> - (flags << ENETC_TXBD_FLAGS_OFFSET);
>> + temp = lower_32_bits(tx_start >> 5 & ENETC_TXBD_TXSTART_MASK)
>|
>> + (u32)(flags << ENETC_TXBD_FLAGS_OFFSET);
>
>I don't actually understand why lower_32_bits called on the TX time
>helps, considering that the value is masked already.
Just want to ensure it's handled as u32 and not u64. I also think
lower_32_bits()
is the cleanest way to convert from u64 to u32, in this case at least.
>The static analysis
>tool says that the right hand side of the "|" operator is what is
>sign-extended:
>
> (flags << ENETC_TXBD_FLAGS_OFFSET);
>
>Isn't it sufficient that you replace "u8 flags" in the function
>prototype with "u32 flags"?
>
I prefer to cast it to u32 after the shift. The 'flags' argument passed to this
helper
function is always u8 as it matches the 8-bit field of the Tx BD DMA structure.
