Re: [PATCH v2] selftests/bpf: fix array_size.cocci warning

From: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@kernel.org>,
	"Martin KaFai Lau" <kafai@fb.com>,
	"Song Liu" <songliubraving@fb.com>, "Yonghong Song" <yhs@fb.com>,
	"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
	"KP Singh" <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
	"Yucong Sun" <sunyucong@gmail.com>,
	"Dave Marchevsky" <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
	"Christy Lee" <christylee@fb.com>,
	"Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>,
	"Delyan Kratunov" <delyank@fb.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
	<netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
	<bpf@vger.kernel.org>, "open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"zhengkui_guo@outlook.com" <zhengkui_guo@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests/bpf: fix array_size.cocci warning
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:48:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9aa7d222-57ff-ad0c-7094-a3ee160ddb83@vivo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzY0F3g8oH7+u14DTs707STVSCi8j=A5_S=hn6VRXHzzXg@mail.gmail.com>

On 2022/3/12 2:38, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 7:36 PM Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fix the array_size.cocci warning in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/
>>
>> Use `ARRAY_SIZE(arr)` in bpf_util.h instead of forms like
>> `sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0])`.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guo Zhengkui <guozhengkui@vivo.com>
>> ---
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgroup_attach_autodetach.c     | 2 +-
>>   .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgroup_attach_multi.c  | 2 +-
>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/cgroup_attach_override.c       | 2 +-
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data.c        | 6 +++---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/obj_name.c           | 2 +-
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/syscall.c                 | 3 ++-
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_rdonly_maps.c        | 3 ++-
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_cgroup_storage.c           | 2 +-
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lru_map.c                  | 4 ++--
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sock_addr.c                | 6 +++---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c                  | 4 ++--
>>   11 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_rdonly_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_rdonly_maps.c
>> index fc8e8a34a3db..a500f2c15970 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_rdonly_maps.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_rdonly_maps.c
>> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>>
>>   #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>>   #include <linux/bpf.h>
>> +#include <bpf_util.h>
> 
> bpf_util.h isn't supposed to be included from BPF source code side. Is
> this ARRAY_SIZE() use so important for BPF programs? Maybe just leave
> existing code under progs/*.c as is?

I think so. Just leave progs/*.c unchanged. I'll commit PATCH v3.

> 
>>   #include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>>
>>   const struct {
>> @@ -64,7 +65,7 @@ int full_loop(struct pt_regs *ctx)
>>   {
>>          /* prevent compiler to optimize everything out */
>>          unsigned * volatile p = (void *)&rdonly_values.a;
>> -       int i = sizeof(rdonly_values.a) / sizeof(rdonly_values.a[0]);
>> +       int i = ARRAY_SIZE(rdonly_values.a);
>>          unsigned iters = 0, sum = 0;
>>
>>          /* validate verifier can allow full loop as well */
> 
> [...]

Zhengkui