From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
joey.gouly@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
james.morse@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bitfield: Ensure the return value of type##_replace_bits() is checked
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:45:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86tt3n9fsh.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <03a76e9a-86ac-4791-9f0a-494b28c07fcc@arm.com>
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:42:06 +0100,
Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Yury,
>
> On 7/7/25 17:31, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 02:57:29PM +0100, Ben Horgan wrote:
> >> As type##_replace_bits() has no side effects it is only useful if its
> >> return value is checked. Add __must_check to enforce this usage. To have
> >> the bits replaced in-place typep##_replace_bits() can be used instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/bitfield.h | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> index 6d9a53db54b6..39333b80d22b 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> @@ -195,8 +195,8 @@ static __always_inline __##type type##_encode_bits(base v, base field) \
> >> __field_overflow(); \
> >> return to((v & field_mask(field)) * field_multiplier(field)); \
> >> } \
> >> -static __always_inline __##type type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \
> >> - base val, base field) \
> >> +static __always_inline __##type __must_check type##_replace_bits(__##type old, \
> >> + base val, base field) \
> >> { \
> >> return (old & ~to(field)) | type##_encode_bits(val, field); \
> >> } \
> >
> > So, would it make sense to mark _encode_bits() and _get_bits() as
> > __must_check as well? At least from the point of unification, it
> > would.
> Could do. It seems less important as there are no obvious foot-guns
> that these would guards against. Would you like me to add this in a
> v2?
> >
> > How would we move this - with my bitmap-for next or with arm branch?
>
> I'm not familiar with the branch machinery so can't comment on this.
The first patch will definitely go in via the KVM/arm64 tree, probably
as a fix for 6.16.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-08 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-03 13:57 [PATCH 0/2] Fix and add warning of misuse of type##_replace_bits() Ben Horgan
2025-07-03 13:57 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix enforcement of upper bound on MDCR_EL2.HPMN Ben Horgan
2025-07-04 6:44 ` Zenghui Yu
2025-07-03 13:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] bitfield: Ensure the return value of type##_replace_bits() is checked Ben Horgan
2025-07-07 16:31 ` Yury Norov
2025-07-08 9:42 ` Ben Horgan
2025-07-08 9:45 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2025-07-08 14:46 ` Yury Norov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86tt3n9fsh.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=ben.horgan@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).