| Message ID | 20240816153251.2833702-8-andre.przywara@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kselftest/arm64: various compilation fixes | expand |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 04:32:50PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > When printing the value of a pointer, we should not use an integer > format specifier, but the dedicated "%p" instead. > > Fixes: e9b60476bea0 ("kselftest/arm64: Add utilities and a test to validate mte memory") This is another one where calling it a fix seems like it's pushing it, it's a modernisation rather than a correctness thing. Otherwise Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:32:39 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 04:32:50PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > > When printing the value of a pointer, we should not use an integer > > format specifier, but the dedicated "%p" instead. > > > > Fixes: e9b60476bea0 ("kselftest/arm64: Add utilities and a test to validate mte memory") > > This is another one where calling it a fix seems like it's pushing it, > it's a modernisation rather than a correctness thing. Well, I get compiler warnings, so I thought "fix" would be adequate. But in general this confusion between pointers and integers sounds not good, and not using %p looks like a genuine bug to me (though it's admittedly working fine (TM) for now). > Otherwise > > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Thanks for that! Cheers, Andre
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 05:59:08PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 04:32:50PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > Fixes: e9b60476bea0 ("kselftest/arm64: Add utilities and a test to validate mte memory") > > This is another one where calling it a fix seems like it's pushing it, > > it's a modernisation rather than a correctness thing. > Well, I get compiler warnings, so I thought "fix" would be adequate. But > in general this confusion between pointers and integers sounds not good, > and not using %p looks like a genuine bug to me (though it's admittedly > working fine (TM) for now). Those compiler warnings are a relatively new thing - they won't have been triggered when the code was written, and practically speaking on arm64 it's more of a C language correctness thing than a meaningful change.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_buffer_fill.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_buffer_fill.c index 1dbbbd47dd501..2ee7f114d7fa8 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_buffer_fill.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_buffer_fill.c @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int check_buffer_underflow_by_byte(int mem_type, int mode, for (j = 0; j < sizes[i]; j++) { if (ptr[j] != '1') { err = true; - ksft_print_msg("Buffer is not filled at index:%d of ptr:0x%lx\n", + ksft_print_msg("Buffer is not filled at index:%d of ptr:0x%p\n", j, ptr); break; } @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static int check_buffer_overflow_by_byte(int mem_type, int mode, for (j = 0; j < sizes[i]; j++) { if (ptr[j] != '1') { err = true; - ksft_print_msg("Buffer is not filled at index:%d of ptr:0x%lx\n", + ksft_print_msg("Buffer is not filled at index:%d of ptr:0x%p\n", j, ptr); break; } diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c index 9380edca29c7d..17fbe5cfe4724 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ void *mte_insert_tags(void *ptr, size_t size) int align_size; if (!ptr || (unsigned long)(ptr) & MT_ALIGN_GRANULE) { - ksft_print_msg("FAIL: Addr=%lx: invalid\n", ptr); + ksft_print_msg("FAIL: Addr=%p: invalid\n", ptr); return NULL; } align_size = MT_ALIGN_UP(size); @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ void *mte_insert_tags(void *ptr, size_t size) void mte_clear_tags(void *ptr, size_t size) { if (!ptr || (unsigned long)(ptr) & MT_ALIGN_GRANULE) { - ksft_print_msg("FAIL: Addr=%lx: invalid\n", ptr); + ksft_print_msg("FAIL: Addr=%p: invalid\n", ptr); return; } size = MT_ALIGN_UP(size);
When printing the value of a pointer, we should not use an integer format specifier, but the dedicated "%p" instead. Fixes: e9b60476bea0 ("kselftest/arm64: Add utilities and a test to validate mte memory") Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_buffer_fill.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/arm64/mte/mte_common_util.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)