Re: Possible bug in linux-6.2/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/pmu/sampling_tests/mmcra_thresh_marked_sample_test.c

[Michael Ellerman]

David Binderman <dcb314@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hello there,
>
> I ran the static analyser cppcheck over the linux-6.2 source code and got this:
>
> linux-6.2/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/pmu/sampling_tests/mmcra_thresh_marked_sample_test.c:68:10: style: Same expression '0x3' found multiple times in chain of '&' operators. [duplicateExpression]

Thanks.

> Source code is
>
>     FAIL_IF(EV_CODE_EXTRACT(event.attr.config, sample & 0x3) !=
>             get_mmcra_sample_mode(get_reg_value(intr_regs, "MMCRA"), 4));
>
> but
>
> #define EV_CODE_EXTRACT(x, y)   \
>     ((x >> ev_shift_##y) & ev_mask_##y)
>
>
> Given the token pasting, I very much doubt an expression like "sample & 0x3"
> will work correctly. Same thing on the line above 
>
>     FAIL_IF(EV_CODE_EXTRACT(event.attr.config, sample >> 2) !=
>             get_mmcra_rand_samp_elig(get_reg_value(intr_regs, "MMCRA"), 4));
>
> "sample >> 2" doesn't look like a valid token to me.

It expands to:

 if ((((event.attr.config >> ev_shift_sample >> 2) & ev_mask_sample >> 2) != get_mmcra_rand_samp_elig(get_reg_value(intr_regs, "MMCRA"), 4))) 

Which AFAICS is valid, and does compile.

Whether it's what the author actually intended is less clear.

And the other example with & 0x3 seems obviously wrong, it expands to:

  if ((((event.attr.config >> ev_shift_sample & 0x3) & ev_mask_sample & 0x3) != get_mmcra_sample_mode(get_reg_value(intr_regs, "MMCRA"), 4)))

The shift is 24, so bitwise anding it with 0x3 gets 0 which doesn't seem
likely to be what was intended.

cheers