Re: Typecast problems in SKFP driver - Kernel

This is a discussion on Re: Typecast problems in SKFP driver - Kernel ; Loic Grenie writes: > I've just compiled the 2.6.26-git5 kernel and the SKFP driver > compilation produces complaints about typecasts. These complaints > disappear with the following patch. NAK, this needs to be done by someone with better understanding of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Typecast problems in SKFP driver

  1. Re: Typecast problems in SKFP driver

    Loic Grenie writes:
    > I've just compiled the 2.6.26-git5 kernel and the SKFP driver
    > compilation produces complaints about typecasts. These complaints
    > disappear with the following patch.


    NAK, this needs to be done by someone with better understanding of C.

    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Loïc Grenié
    > diff --git a/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c b/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > index 889f987..d3a8afc 100644
    > --- a/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > +++ b/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static void ess_send_response(struct s_smc *smc, struct smt_header *sm,
    > chg->path.para.p_type = SMT_P320B ;
    > chg->path.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_320b) - PARA_LEN ;
    > chg->path.mib_index = SBAPATHINDEX ;
    > - chg->path.path_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > + chg->path.path_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > chg->path.path_index = PRIMARY_RING ;


    Putting NULL (a pointer type) in an u_short field is utterly
    and completely broken. My guess is that the code really wants:

    chg->path.path_pad = 0;

    > /* set P320F */
    > @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void ess_send_alc_req(struct s_smc *smc)
    > req->path.para.p_type = SMT_P320B ;
    > req->path.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_320b) - PARA_LEN ;
    > req->path.mib_index = SBAPATHINDEX ;
    > - req->path.path_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > + req->path.path_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > req->path.path_index = PRIMARY_RING ;


    ditto

    >
    > /* set P0017 */
    > @@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ static void ess_send_alc_req(struct s_smc *smc)
    > /* set P19 */
    > req->a_addr.para.p_type = SMT_P0019 ;
    > req->a_addr.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_0019) - PARA_LEN ;
    > - req->a_addr.sba_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > + req->a_addr.sba_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > req->a_addr.alloc_addr = null_addr ;


    ditto

    >
    > /* set P1A */
    > diff --git a/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c b/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > index ea85de9..5798be4 100644
    > --- a/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > +++ b/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > @@ -44,17 +44,17 @@ static SMbuf *smt_build_pmf_response(struct s_smc *smc, struct smt_header *req,
    > int set, int local);
    > static int port_to_mib(struct s_smc *smc, int p);
    >
    > -#define MOFFSS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > -#define MOFFSA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFSS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFSA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))


    NAK, use offsetof().

    How is the MOFFSA() used? As written it makes no sense at all
    as evaluating it as an r-value will oops.

    >
    > -#define MOFFMS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > -#define MOFFMA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFMS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFMA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))


    ditto

    >
    > -#define MOFFAS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > -#define MOFFAA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFAS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFAA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))


    ditto

    >
    > -#define MOFFPS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > -#define MOFFPA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFPS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > +#define MOFFPA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))


    ditto

    To be fair, the original code is crap, but your changes don't
    make it any better.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: Typecast problems in SKFP driver

    2008/7/17 Mikael Pettersson :
    > Loic Grenie writes:
    > > I've just compiled the 2.6.26-git5 kernel and the SKFP driver
    > > compilation produces complaints about typecasts. These complaints
    > > disappear with the following patch.

    >
    > NAK, this needs to be done by someone with better understanding of C.


    or, better, by someone with a better understanding of the driver.

    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Loïc Grenié
    > > diff --git a/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c b/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > > index 889f987..d3a8afc 100644
    > > --- a/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > > +++ b/drivers/net/skfp/ess.c
    > > @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static void ess_send_response(struct s_smc *smc, struct smt_header *sm,
    > > chg->path.para.p_type = SMT_P320B ;
    > > chg->path.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_320b) - PARA_LEN ;
    > > chg->path.mib_index = SBAPATHINDEX ;
    > > - chg->path.path_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > > + chg->path.path_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > > chg->path.path_index = PRIMARY_RING ;

    >
    > Putting NULL (a pointer type) in an u_short field is utterly
    > and completely broken. My guess is that the code really wants:
    >
    > chg->path.path_pad = 0;


    Indeed. I do not even understand why it was done that way in the
    first place.

    > > /* set P320F */
    > > @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void ess_send_alc_req(struct s_smc *smc)
    > > req->path.para.p_type = SMT_P320B ;
    > > req->path.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_320b) - PARA_LEN ;
    > > req->path.mib_index = SBAPATHINDEX ;
    > > - req->path.path_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > > + req->path.path_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > > req->path.path_index = PRIMARY_RING ;

    >
    > ditto
    >
    > >
    > > /* set P0017 */
    > > @@ -636,7 +636,7 @@ static void ess_send_alc_req(struct s_smc *smc)
    > > /* set P19 */
    > > req->a_addr.para.p_type = SMT_P0019 ;
    > > req->a_addr.para.p_len = sizeof(struct smt_p_0019) - PARA_LEN ;
    > > - req->a_addr.sba_pad = (u_short)NULL ;
    > > + req->a_addr.sba_pad = (u_short)(long)NULL ;
    > > req->a_addr.alloc_addr = null_addr ;

    >
    > ditto
    >
    > >
    > > /* set P1A */
    > > diff --git a/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c b/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > > index ea85de9..5798be4 100644
    > > --- a/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > > +++ b/drivers/net/skfp/pmf.c
    > > @@ -44,17 +44,17 @@ static SMbuf *smt_build_pmf_response(struct s_smc *smc, struct smt_header *req,
    > > int set, int local);
    > > static int port_to_mib(struct s_smc *smc, int p);
    > >
    > > -#define MOFFSS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > > -#define MOFFSA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFSS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFSA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib *)0)->e))

    >
    > NAK, use offsetof().
    >
    > How is the MOFFSA() used? As written it makes no sense at all
    > as evaluating it as an r-value will oops.


    I think it is used when e is an array (unchecked).

    > >
    > > -#define MOFFMS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > > -#define MOFFMA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFMS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFMA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_m *)0)->e))

    >
    > ditto
    >
    > >
    > > -#define MOFFAS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > > -#define MOFFAA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFAS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFAA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_a *)0)->e))

    >
    > ditto
    >
    > >
    > > -#define MOFFPS(e) ((int)&(((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > > -#define MOFFPA(e) ((int) (((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFPS(e) ((long)&(((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))
    > > +#define MOFFPA(e) ((long) (((struct fddi_mib_p *)0)->e))

    >
    > ditto
    >
    > To be fair, the original code is crap, but your changes don't
    > make it any better.
    >


    I agree... Maybe someone with stronger guts than mine will have
    read about it and will correct it for some next release.

    Thanks once again,

    Loïc
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

+ Reply to Thread