2:39 a.m.
Hi Shubhankar,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on net-next/master]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.12-rc2 next-20210311]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Shubhankar-Kuranagatti/net-core-...
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git
34bb975126419e86bc3b95e200dc41de6c6ca69c
config: x86_64-randconfig-r025-20210311 (attached as .config)
compiler: clang version 13.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
574a9dabc63ba1e7a04c08d4bde2eacd61b44ce1)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O
~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# install x86_64 cross compiling tool for clang build
# apt-get install binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu
#
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commit/89811231e3ec535f3e5188fb8578535e1...
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review
Shubhankar-Kuranagatti/net-core-datagram-c-Fix-use-of-assignment-in-if-condition/20210311-184120
git checkout 89811231e3ec535f3e5188fb8578535e13c1f1ba
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=clang make.cross ARCH=x86_64
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com>
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> net/core/datagram.c:430:14: error: expected ';' after
expression
len -= copy
^
;
net/core/datagram.c:443:22: error: expected ';' after expression
copy = end - offset
^
;
net/core/datagram.c:457:15: error: expected ';' after expression
len -= copy
^
;
net/core/datagram.c:477:15: error: expected ';' after expression
len -= copy
^
;
net/core/datagram.c:591:15: error: expected ';' after expression
len -= copy
^
;
5 errors generated.
vim +430 net/core/datagram.c
406
407 INDIRECT_CALLABLE_DECLARE(static size_t simple_copy_to_iter(const void *addr,
408 size_t bytes,
409 void *data __always_unused,
410 struct iov_iter *i));
411
412 static int __skb_datagram_iter(const struct sk_buff *skb, int offset,
413 struct iov_iter *to, int len, bool fault_short,
414 size_t (*cb)(const void *, size_t, void *,
415 struct iov_iter *), void *data)
416 {
417 int start = skb_headlen(skb);
418 int i, copy = start - offset, start_off = offset, n;
419 struct sk_buff *frag_iter;
420
421 /* Copy header. */
422 if (copy > 0) {
423 if (copy > len)
424 copy = len;
425 n = INDIRECT_CALL_1(cb, simple_copy_to_iter,
426 skb->data + offset, copy, data, to);
427 offset += n;
428 if (n != copy)
429 goto short_copy;
430 len -= copy
431 if ((len) == 0)
432 return 0;
433 }
434
435 /* Copy paged appendix. Hmm... why does this look so complicated? */
436 for (i = 0; i < skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags; i++) {
437 int end;
438 const skb_frag_t *frag = &skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[i];
439
440 WARN_ON(start > offset + len);
441
442 end = start + skb_frag_size(frag);
443 copy = end - offset
444 if ((copy) > 0) {
445 struct page *page = skb_frag_page(frag);
446 u8 *vaddr = kmap(page);
447
448 if (copy > len)
449 copy = len;
450 n = INDIRECT_CALL_1(cb, simple_copy_to_iter,
451 vaddr + skb_frag_off(frag) + offset - start,
452 copy, data, to);
453 kunmap(page);
454 offset += n;
455 if (n != copy)
456 goto short_copy;
457 len -= copy
458 if (!(len))
459 return 0;
460 }
461 start = end;
462 }
463
464 skb_walk_frags(skb, frag_iter) {
465 int end;
466
467 WARN_ON(start > offset + len);
468
469 end = start + frag_iter->len;
470 copy = end - offset;
471 if ((copy) > 0) {
472 if (copy > len)
473 copy = len;
474 if (__skb_datagram_iter(frag_iter, offset - start,
475 to, copy, fault_short, cb, data))
476 goto fault;
477 len -= copy
478 if ((len) == 0)
479 return 0;
480 offset += copy;
481 }
482 start = end;
483 }
484 if (!len)
485 return 0;
486
487 /* This is not really a user copy fault, but rather someone
488 * gave us a bogus length on the skb. We should probably
489 * print a warning here as it may indicate a kernel bug.
490 */
491
492 fault:
493 iov_iter_revert(to, offset - start_off);
494 return -EFAULT;
495
496 short_copy:
497 if (fault_short || iov_iter_count(to))
498 goto fault;
499
500 return 0;
501 }
502
---
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service, Intel Corporation
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org