diff mbox series

[v2,06/16] add testcases for packed bitfields

Message ID 20201226175129.9621-7-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Headers show
Series support __packed struct | expand

Commit Message

Luc Van Oostenryck Dec. 26, 2020, 5:51 p.m. UTC 
Currently, packed bitfields are not handled correctly.

Add some testcases for them.

Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
---
 validation/packed-bitfield0.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 validation/packed-bitfield1.c | 28 +++++++++++++++
 validation/packed-bitfield2.c | 16 +++++++++
 validation/packed-bitfield3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++
 validation/packed-bitfield4.c | 19 ++++++++++
 validation/packed-bitfield5.c | 21 +++++++++++
 6 files changed, 180 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield0.c
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield1.c
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield2.c
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield3.c
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield4.c
 create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield5.c

Comments

Ramsay Jones Dec. 28, 2020, 4:28 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 26/12/2020 17:51, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> Currently, packed bitfields are not handled correctly.
> 
> Add some testcases for them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  validation/packed-bitfield0.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  validation/packed-bitfield1.c | 28 +++++++++++++++
>  validation/packed-bitfield2.c | 16 +++++++++
>  validation/packed-bitfield3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++
>  validation/packed-bitfield4.c | 19 ++++++++++
>  validation/packed-bitfield5.c | 21 +++++++++++
>  6 files changed, 180 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield0.c
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield1.c
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield2.c
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield3.c
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield4.c
>  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> 
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield0.c b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..907500dedbf0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +#define alignof(X)	__alignof__(X)
> +#define __packed	__attribute__((packed))
> +
> +struct sa {
> +	int a:7;
> +	int c:10;
> +	int b:2;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sa) == 1, "alignof(struct sa)");
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sa) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sa)");
> +
> +struct __packed sb {
> +	int a:7;
> +	int c:10;
> +	int b:2;
> +};
> +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sb) == 1, "alignof(struct sb)");
> +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sb) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sb)");

Why 'struct sb'? It is not used in the rest of the test (and is
identical to 'struct sa').

> +
> +
> +static int get_size(void)
> +{
> +	return sizeof(struct sa);
> +}
> +
> +static void chk_align(struct sa sa, struct sa *p)
> +{
> +	_Static_assert(alignof(sa) == 1, "alignof(sa)");
> +	_Static_assert(alignof(*p) == 1, "alignof(*p)");
> +}
> +
> +static int fp0(struct sa *sa)
> +{
> +	return sa->c;
> +}
> +
> +static int fpx(struct sa *sa, int idx)
> +{
> +	return sa[idx].c;
> +}
> +
> +static int fglobal(void)
> +{
> +	extern struct sa g;
> +	return g.c;
> +}
> +
> +static struct sa l;
> +static int flocal(void)
> +{
> +	return l.c;
> +}
> +
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +	extern void fun(struct sa *);
> +	struct sa sa = { 0 };
> +
> +	fun(&sa);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield0
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield1.c b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..208a3dc5127c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> +#define __packed	__attribute__((packed))
> +
> +struct s {
> +	unsigned int f0:1;
> +	unsigned int f1:1;
> +	unsigned int pad:6;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 1,  "sizeof(struct s)");
> +
> +extern struct s g;
> +
> +static int foo(struct s *ptr)
> +{
> +	int f = 0;
> +
> +	f += g.f0;
> +	f += g.f1;
> +
> +	f += ptr->f0;
> +	f += ptr->f1;
> +
> +	return f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield1
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield2.c b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4587ebec5c90
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +struct bf2 {
> +	unsigned p1:2;
> +	unsigned i1:32;
> +	unsigned p2:2;
> +	unsigned s9:9;
> +	unsigned s9:9;
> +	unsigned s9:9;
> +	unsigned b1:1;
> +} __attribute__((packed));
> +
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct bf2) == 8);
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield2
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield3.c b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..6acff875299f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef unsigned char   u8;
> +typedef __UINT16_TYPE__ u16;
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +typedef __UINT64_TYPE__ u64;
> +
> +struct b {
> +	u32	a:1;
> +	u32	b:2;
> +	u32	c:4;
> +	u32	d:8;
> +	u32	e:16;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct b) == 1);
> +_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct b) == sizeof(u32));

Again '== sizeof(u32)' does not seem useful. (what is it
trying to say?)

> +
> +struct c {
> +	u8	a;
> +	u8	b;
> +	u64	c:48;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct c) == 1);
> +_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct c) == sizeof(u64));

ditto.

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield3
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield4.c b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0342b2414b6e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +
> +struct s {
> +	u32	f:24;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 3);
> +
> +static int ld(struct s *s)
> +{
> +	return s->f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield4
> + * check-description: Is check_access() OK with short packed bitfields?
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
> diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield5.c b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..8f44d4c2c277
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
> +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> +
> +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> +
> +struct s {
> +	u32	a:5;
> +	u32	f:30;
> +	u32	z:5;
> +} __packed;
> +_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 5);
> +
> +static int ld(struct s *s)
> +{
> +	return s->f;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * check-name: packed-bitfield5
> + * check-description: is check_access() OK with 'overlapping' packed bitfields?
> + * check-known-to-fail
> + */
>
Luc Van Oostenryck Dec. 28, 2020, 8:05 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 04:28:24PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/12/2020 17:51, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > Currently, packed bitfields are not handled correctly.
> > 
> > Add some testcases for them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  validation/packed-bitfield0.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  validation/packed-bitfield1.c | 28 +++++++++++++++
> >  validation/packed-bitfield2.c | 16 +++++++++
> >  validation/packed-bitfield3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++
> >  validation/packed-bitfield4.c | 19 ++++++++++
> >  validation/packed-bitfield5.c | 21 +++++++++++
> >  6 files changed, 180 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield1.c
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield2.c
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield4.c
> >  create mode 100644 validation/packed-bitfield5.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield0.c b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..907500dedbf0
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> > +#define alignof(X)	__alignof__(X)
> > +#define __packed	__attribute__((packed))
> > +
> > +struct sa {
> > +	int a:7;
> > +	int c:10;
> > +	int b:2;
> > +} __packed;
> > +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sa) == 1, "alignof(struct sa)");
> > +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sa) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sa)");
> > +
> > +struct __packed sb {
> > +	int a:7;
> > +	int c:10;
> > +	int b:2;
> > +};
> > +_Static_assert(alignof(struct sb) == 1, "alignof(struct sb)");
> > +_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sb) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sb)");
> 
> Why 'struct sb'? It is not used in the rest of the test (and is
> identical to 'struct sa').

Good question :)
I've probably reused some previous file as a kind of template.
 
> > diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield3.c b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..6acff875299f
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> > +#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
> > +
> > +typedef unsigned char   u8;
> > +typedef __UINT16_TYPE__ u16;
> > +typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
> > +typedef __UINT64_TYPE__ u64;
> > +
> > +struct b {
> > +	u32	a:1;
> > +	u32	b:2;
> > +	u32	c:4;
> > +	u32	d:8;
> > +	u32	e:16;
> > +} __packed;
> > +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct b) == 1);
> > +_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct b) == sizeof(u32));
> 
> Again '== sizeof(u32)' does not seem useful. (what is it
> trying to say?)
> 
> > +
> > +struct c {
> > +	u8	a;
> > +	u8	b;
> > +	u64	c:48;
> > +} __packed;
> > +_Static_assert(__alignof(struct c) == 1);
> > +_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct c) == sizeof(u64));
> 
> ditto.

Yes, I agree.

-- Luc
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield0.c b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..907500dedbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield0.c
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ 
+#define alignof(X)	__alignof__(X)
+#define __packed	__attribute__((packed))
+
+struct sa {
+	int a:7;
+	int c:10;
+	int b:2;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(alignof(struct sa) == 1, "alignof(struct sa)");
+_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sa) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sa)");
+
+struct __packed sb {
+	int a:7;
+	int c:10;
+	int b:2;
+};
+_Static_assert(alignof(struct sb) == 1, "alignof(struct sb)");
+_Static_assert( sizeof(struct sb) == 3,  "sizeof(struct sb)");
+
+
+static int get_size(void)
+{
+	return sizeof(struct sa);
+}
+
+static void chk_align(struct sa sa, struct sa *p)
+{
+	_Static_assert(alignof(sa) == 1, "alignof(sa)");
+	_Static_assert(alignof(*p) == 1, "alignof(*p)");
+}
+
+static int fp0(struct sa *sa)
+{
+	return sa->c;
+}
+
+static int fpx(struct sa *sa, int idx)
+{
+	return sa[idx].c;
+}
+
+static int fglobal(void)
+{
+	extern struct sa g;
+	return g.c;
+}
+
+static struct sa l;
+static int flocal(void)
+{
+	return l.c;
+}
+
+
+int main(void)
+{
+	extern void fun(struct sa *);
+	struct sa sa = { 0 };
+
+	fun(&sa);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield0
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */
diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield1.c b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..208a3dc5127c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ 
+#define __packed	__attribute__((packed))
+
+struct s {
+	unsigned int f0:1;
+	unsigned int f1:1;
+	unsigned int pad:6;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 1,  "sizeof(struct s)");
+
+extern struct s g;
+
+static int foo(struct s *ptr)
+{
+	int f = 0;
+
+	f += g.f0;
+	f += g.f1;
+
+	f += ptr->f0;
+	f += ptr->f1;
+
+	return f;
+}
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield1
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */
diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield2.c b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4587ebec5c90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ 
+struct bf2 {
+	unsigned p1:2;
+	unsigned i1:32;
+	unsigned p2:2;
+	unsigned s9:9;
+	unsigned s9:9;
+	unsigned s9:9;
+	unsigned b1:1;
+} __attribute__((packed));
+
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct bf2) == 8);
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield2
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */
diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield3.c b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6acff875299f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ 
+#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
+
+typedef unsigned char   u8;
+typedef __UINT16_TYPE__ u16;
+typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
+typedef __UINT64_TYPE__ u64;
+
+struct b {
+	u32	a:1;
+	u32	b:2;
+	u32	c:4;
+	u32	d:8;
+	u32	e:16;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(__alignof(struct b) == 1);
+_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct b) == sizeof(u32));
+
+struct c {
+	u8	a;
+	u8	b;
+	u64	c:48;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(__alignof(struct c) == 1);
+_Static_assert(   sizeof(struct c) == sizeof(u64));
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield3
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */
diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield4.c b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0342b2414b6e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield4.c
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ 
+#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
+
+typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
+
+struct s {
+	u32	f:24;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 3);
+
+static int ld(struct s *s)
+{
+	return s->f;
+}
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield4
+ * check-description: Is check_access() OK with short packed bitfields?
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */
diff --git a/validation/packed-bitfield5.c b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..8f44d4c2c277
--- /dev/null
+++ b/validation/packed-bitfield5.c
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ 
+#define __packed __attribute__((packed))
+
+typedef __UINT32_TYPE__ u32;
+
+struct s {
+	u32	a:5;
+	u32	f:30;
+	u32	z:5;
+} __packed;
+_Static_assert(sizeof(struct s) == 5);
+
+static int ld(struct s *s)
+{
+	return s->f;
+}
+
+/*
+ * check-name: packed-bitfield5
+ * check-description: is check_access() OK with 'overlapping' packed bitfields?
+ * check-known-to-fail
+ */