[PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

[PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

[Augusto Mecking Caringi]

In a 64bit system (where long is 64bit wide), even dividing LONG_MAX by
HZ will always be bigger than the max value that an int variable can
hold.

This has been detected by building the driver with W=1:

drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c: In function ‘srp_tmo_valid’:
drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:92:19: warning: comparison is always
false due to limited range of data type [-Wtype-limits]
if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
                   ^

Signed-off-by: Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
index b87a786..d8c83f4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ int srp_tmo_valid(int reconnect_delay, int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
 	if (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 &&
 	    dev_loss_tmo > SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
+	if (dev_loss_tmo >= INT_MAX / HZ)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 && dev_loss_tmo >= 0 &&
 	    fast_io_fail_tmo >= dev_loss_tmo)
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

[Bart Van Assche]

On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 11:17 +0000, Augusto Mecking Caringi wrote:
> In a 64bit system (where long is 64bit wide), even dividing LONG_MAX by
> HZ will always be bigger than the max value that an int variable can
> hold.
> 
> This has been detected by building the driver with W=1:
> 
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c: In function ‘srp_tmo_valid’:
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c:92:19: warning: comparison is always
> false due to limited range of data type [-Wtype-limits]
> if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
>                    ^
> 
> Signed-off-by: Augusto Mecking Caringi <augustocaringi@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> index b87a786..d8c83f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_srp.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ int srp_tmo_valid(int reconnect_delay, int fast_io_fail_tmo, int dev_loss_tmo)
>  	if (fast_io_fail_tmo < 0 &&
>  	    dev_loss_tmo > SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -	if (dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ)
> +	if (dev_loss_tmo >= INT_MAX / HZ)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	if (fast_io_fail_tmo >= 0 && dev_loss_tmo >= 0 &&
>  	    fast_io_fail_tmo >= dev_loss_tmo)

This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?

Bart.

Re: [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

[Augusto Mecking Caringi]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bart Van Assche
<Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> wrote:
> This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
> is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
> overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
> dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?

Hi Bart,

    Right, now a I see...

    Doing your proposed change the warning go away...

    Do you want me to send a new patch for that?

-- 
Augusto Mecking Caringi

Re: [PATCH] scsi: srp_transport: Fix 'always false comparison' in srp_tmo_valid()

[Bart Van Assche]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 10:06 +0000, Augusto Mecking Caringi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Bart Van Assche
> <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> wrote:
> > This patch is wrong. The purpose of the dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ check
> > is to avoid that the expression 1UL * dev_loss_tmo * HZ further down
> > overflows. Can you check whether changing the if-statement into if (1UL *
> > dev_loss_tmo >= LONG_MAX / HZ) also suppresses the compiler warning?
> 
> Hi Bart,
> 
>     Right, now a I see...
> 
>     Doing your proposed change the warning go away...
> 
>     Do you want me to send a new patch for that?

Hello Augusto,

If you want your patch to go upstream you will have to repost it.

Bart.