I am attempting to create a coccinelle script that will detect possibly buggy
usage of the bitwise operators where integer promotion may result in bugs,
usually due to sign extension.

I know this script needs a lot more work, but I am just beginning to learn the
syntax of coccinelle. At this stage I am mainly looking for advice if this is
even worth continuing, or if I am on the wrong track entirely. 

Here is an example of the bug I hope to find:


Where ints and unsigned are mixed in bitwise operations, and the sizes differ.


Evan Benn

Signed-off-by: Evan Benn <evanb...@chromium.org>

 .../coccinelle/tests/int_sign_extend.cocci    | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/tests/int_sign_extend.cocci

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/tests/int_sign_extend.cocci 
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..bad61e37e4e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/tests/int_sign_extend.cocci
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/// Mixing signed and unsigned types in bitwise operations risks problems when
+/// the 'Usual arithmetic conversions' are applied.
+/// For example:
+/// https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210317013758.ga134...@roeck-us.net/
+/// When a signed int and an unsigned int are compared there is no problem.
+/// But if the unsigned is changed to a unsigned long, for example by using BIT
+/// the signed value will be sign-extended and could result in incorrect logic.
+// Confidence:
+// Copyright: (C) 2021 Evan Benn <evanb...@chromium.org>
+// Comments:
+// Options:
+virtual context
+virtual org
+virtual report
+position p;
+{int} s;
+{unsigned long} u;
+    s@p & u
+@script:python depends on org@
+p << r.p;
+cocci.print_main("sign extension when comparing bits of signed and unsigned 
values", p)
+@script:python depends on report@
+p << r.p;
+coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],"sign extension when comparing bits of 
signed and unsigned values")

Cocci mailing list

Reply via email to