On 1/24/22 15:18, Dumitru Ceara wrote: > UB Sanitizer reports: > tests/test-hash.c:59:40: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for > 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' > #0 0x44c3c9 in get_range128 tests/test-hash.c:59 > #1 0x44cb2e in check_hash_bytes128 tests/test-hash.c:178 > #2 0x44d14d in test_hash_main tests/test-hash.c:282 > [...] > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:5607:45: runtime error: left shift of 65535 by > 16 places cannot be represented in type 'int' > #0 0x53fe9f in xlate_sample_action ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:5607 > #1 0x54d625 in do_xlate_actions ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:7160 > #2 0x553b76 in xlate_actions ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c:7806 > #3 0x4fcb49 in upcall_xlate ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c:1237 > #4 0x4fe02f in process_upcall ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c:1456 > #5 0x4fda99 in upcall_cb ofproto/ofproto-dpif-upcall.c:1358 > [...] > tests/test-util.c:89:23: runtime error: left shift of 1 by 31 places cannot > be represented in type 'int' > #0 0x476415 in test_ctz tests/test-util.c:89 > [...] > lib/dpif-netlink.c:396:33: runtime error: left shift of 1 by 31 places > cannot be represented in type 'int' > #0 0x571b9f in dpif_netlink_open lib/dpif-netlink.c:396 > > Acked-by: Aaron Conole <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> > --- > v3: Added Aaron's ack. > --- > lib/dpif-netlink.c | 2 +- > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c | 3 ++- > tests/test-hash.c | 2 +- > tests/test-util.c | 13 ++++++------- > 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/dpif-netlink.c b/lib/dpif-netlink.c > index 71e35ccddaae..06e1e8ca0283 100644 > --- a/lib/dpif-netlink.c > +++ b/lib/dpif-netlink.c > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ enum { MAX_PORTS = USHRT_MAX }; > #define EPOLLEXCLUSIVE (1u << 28) > #endif > > -#define OVS_DP_F_UNSUPPORTED (1 << 31); > +#define OVS_DP_F_UNSUPPORTED (1u << 31); > > /* This PID is not used by the kernel datapath when using dispatch per CPU, > * but it is required to be set (not zero). */ > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > index 6fb59e1702ec..d2b26f8ee27d 100644 > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c > @@ -5618,7 +5618,8 @@ xlate_sample_action(struct xlate_ctx *ctx, > > /* Scale the probability from 16-bit to 32-bit while representing > * the same percentage. */ > - uint32_t probability = (os->probability << 16) | os->probability; > + uint32_t probability = > + ((uint32_t) os->probability << 16) | os->probability; > > /* If ofp_port in flow sample action is equel to ofp_port, > * this sample action is a input port action. */ > diff --git a/tests/test-hash.c b/tests/test-hash.c > index 5d3f8ea43f65..7c33922e3f02 100644 > --- a/tests/test-hash.c > +++ b/tests/test-hash.c > @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ check_hash_bytes128(void (*hash)(const void *, size_t, > uint32_t, ovs_u128 *), > > set_bit128(&in2, j, n_bits); > hash(&in2, sizeof(ovs_u128), 0, &out2); > - for (ofs = 0; ofs < 128 - min_unique; ofs++) { > + for (ofs = 1; ofs < 128 - min_unique; ofs++) {
It looks like we're reducing the quality of the test here. Shouldn't we change get_range128() function to return "value->u64.lo & mask" if ofs == 0 instead? > uint64_t bits1 = get_range128(&out1, ofs, unique_mask); > uint64_t bits2 = get_range128(&out2, ofs, unique_mask); > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
