On 10/15/2019 11:39 PM, Qian Cai wrote:

On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 14:51 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

quoted

+static unsigned long __init get_random_vaddr(void)
+{
+	unsigned long random_vaddr, random_pages, total_user_pages;
+
+	total_user_pages = (TASK_SIZE - FIRST_USER_ADDRESS) / PAGE_SIZE;
+
+	random_pages = get_random_long() % total_user_pages;
+	random_vaddr = FIRST_USER_ADDRESS + random_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
+
+	WARN_ON(random_vaddr > TASK_SIZE);
+	WARN_ON(random_vaddr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS);

It would be nice if this patch does not introduce a new W=1 GCC warning here on
x86 because FIRST_USER_ADDRESS is 0, and GCC think the code is dumb because
"random_vaddr" is unsigned,

In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:83,
                 from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/gfp.h:5,
                 from mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c:13:
mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c: In function ‘get_random_vaddr’:
mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c:359:23: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is
always false [-Wtype-limits]
  WARN_ON(random_vaddr < FIRST_USER_ADDRESS);
                       ^
./include/asm-generic/bug.h:113:25: note: in definition of macro ‘WARN_ON’
  int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);    \
                         ^~~~~~~~~

The test checks against an erroneous unsigned long overflow when
FIRST_USER_ADDRESS is not 0 but a positive number. Wondering if
the compiler will still complain if we merge both the WARN_ON()
checks as || on a single statement.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel