Re: [PATCH net-next v8 03/10] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and unpack_fields()

[Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>]

On 12/4/24 18:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 03:53:49PM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:

Amazing stuff :), I really like the fact that you both keep striving for
the best result, even way past the point of cut off of most other ;)

> diff --git a/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c b/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> index 09a21afd640b..fabbb741c9a8 100644
> --- a/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> +++ b/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> @@ -9,15 +9,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>   {
>   	for (int i = 1; i <= MAX_PACKED_FIELD_SIZE; i++) {
>   		printf("#define CHECK_PACKED_FIELDS_%d(fields) ({ \\\n", i);

[i]
@i in range 1..MAX_PACKED_FIELD_SIZE; inclusive

> -		printf("\ttypeof(&(fields)[0]) _f = (fields); \\\n");
> -		printf("\tBUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(fields) != %d); \\\n", i);
>   
>   		for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
> -			printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELD(_f[%d]); \\\n", j);
> -
> -		for (int j = 1; j < i; j++)
> -			printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELD_OVERLAP(_f[0].startbit < _f[1].startbit, _f[%d], _f[%d]); \\\n",
> -			       j - 1, j);
> +			printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELD(fields, %d); \\\n", j);

[j]
@j < @i

>   
>   		printf("})\n\n");
>   	}
> 
> And there's one more thing I tried, which mostly worked. That was to
> express CHECK_PACKED_FIELDS_N in terms of CHECK_PACKED_FIELDS_N-1.
> This further reduced the auto-generated code size from 1478 lines to 302
> lines, which I think is appealing.

a lot :)

> 
> diff --git a/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c b/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> index fabbb741c9a8..bac85c04ef20 100644
> --- a/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> +++ b/scripts/gen_packed_field_checks.c
> @@ -10,9 +10,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>   	for (int i = 1; i <= MAX_PACKED_FIELD_SIZE; i++) {
>   		printf("#define CHECK_PACKED_FIELDS_%d(fields) ({ \\\n", i);

same as [i] above, ok

>   
> -		for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
> -			printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELD(fields, %d); \\\n", j);
> +		if (i != 1)
> +			printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELDS_%d(fields); \\\n", i - 1);
>   
> +		printf("\tCHECK_PACKED_FIELD(fields, %d); \\\n", i);

prior to the change CHECK_PACKED_FIELD() was called on values smaller
than MAX_PACKED_FIELD_SIZE, compare with [j] above, now you call it also
for the MAX one

>   		printf("})\n\n");
>   	}
>   
> 
> The problem is that, for some reason, it introduces this sparse warning:
> 
> ../lib/packing_test.c:436:9: warning: invalid access past the end of 'test_fields' (24 24)
> ../lib/packing_test.c:448:9: warning: invalid access past the end of 'test_fields' (24 24)
> 

off by one error? see above

> Nobody accesses past element 6 (ARRAY_SIZE) of test_fields[]. I ran the
> KUnit with kasan and I saw no warning. The strace warning comes from
> check_access() in flow.c, but I don't have any energy left today to go
> further into this.
> 
> I'm suspecting either a strace bug/false positive, or some sort of
> variable name aliasing issue which I haven't identified yet.

PS. incremental diff in a single patch is harder to apply, but easier to
review, comment both in a single reply == great idea