Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] Add pci_dev_for_each_resource() helper and update users

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:48:35PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 23:34, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:48:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 01:56:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:21:22PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:11:01AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 07:24:27PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > Provide two new helper macros to iterate over PCI device resources and
> > > > > > > convert users.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Applied 2-7 to pci/resource for v6.4, thanks, I really like this!
> > > > >
> > > > > This is 09cc90063240 ("PCI: Introduce pci_dev_for_each_resource()")
> > > > > upstream now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Coverity complains about each use,
> > > >
> > > > It needs more clarification here. Use of reduced variant of the
> > > > macro or all of them? If the former one, then I can speculate that
> > > > Coverity (famous for false positives) simply doesn't understand `for
> > > > (type var; var ...)` code.
> > >
> > > True, Coverity finds false positives.  It flagged every use in
> > > drivers/pci and drivers/pnp.  It didn't mention the arch/alpha, arm,
> > > mips, powerpc, sh, or sparc uses, but I think it just didn't look at
> > > those.
> > >
> > > It flagged both:
> > >
> > >   pbus_size_io    pci_dev_for_each_resource(dev, r)
> > >   pbus_size_mem   pci_dev_for_each_resource(dev, r, i)
> > >
> > > Here's a spreadsheet with a few more details (unfortunately I don't
> > > know how to make it dump the actual line numbers or analysis like I
> > > pasted below, so "pci_dev_for_each_resource" doesn't appear).  These
> > > are mostly in the "Drivers-PCI" component.
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ohOJwxqXXoDUA0gwopgk-z-6ArLvhN7AZn4mIlDkHhQ/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > > These particular reports are in the "High Impact Outstanding" tab.
> >
> > Where are we at?  Are we going to ignore this because some Coverity
> > reports are false positives?
> 
> Looking at the code I understand where coverity is coming from:
> 
> #define __pci_dev_for_each_res0(dev, res, ...)                         \
>        for (unsigned int __b = 0;                                      \
>             res = pci_resource_n(dev, __b), __b < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES;   \
>             __b++)
> 
>  res will be assigned before __b is checked for being less than
> PCI_NUM_RESOURCES, making it point to behind the array at the end of
> the last loop iteration.

Which is fine and you stumbled over the same mistake I made, that's why the
documentation has been added to describe why the heck this macro is written
the way it's written.

Coverity sucks.

> Rewriting the test expression as
> 
> __b < PCI_NUM_RESOURCES && (res = pci_resource_n(dev, __b));
> 
> should avoid the (coverity) warning by making use of lazy evaluation.

Obviously NAK.

> It probably makes the code slightly less performant as res will now be
> checked for being not NULL (which will always be true), but I doubt it
> will be significant (or in any hot paths).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko