|WARNING| pw156944 [dpdk-dev v1] cryptodev: introduce constant-time memory comparison
checkpatch at dpdk.org
checkpatch at dpdk.org
Thu Sep 25 12:20:41 CEST 2025
Test-Label: checkpatch
Test-Status: WARNING
http://dpdk.org/patch/156944
_coding style issues_
ERROR:COMPLEX_MACRO: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#209: FILE: lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h:95:
+#define rte_consttime_memcmp(a, b, n) __extension__ ({ \
+ const volatile uint8_t *__pa = (const volatile uint8_t *)(a); \
+ const volatile uint8_t *__pb = (const volatile uint8_t *)(b); \
+ uint8_t __result = 0; \
+ for (size_t __i = 0; __i < (n); __i++) \
+ __result |= __pa[__i] ^ __pb[__i]; \
+ __result; \
+})
BUT SEE:
do {} while (0) advice is over-stated in a few situations:
The more obvious case is macros, like MODULE_PARM_DESC, invoked at
file-scope, where C disallows code (it must be in functions). See
$exceptions if you have one to add by name.
More troublesome is declarative macros used at top of new scope,
like DECLARE_PER_CPU. These might just compile with a do-while-0
wrapper, but would be incorrect. Most of these are handled by
detecting struct,union,etc declaration primitives in $exceptions.
Theres also macros called inside an if (block), which "return" an
expression. These cannot do-while, and need a ({}) wrapper.
Enjoy this qualification while we work to improve our heuristics.
WARNING:MISSING_FIXES_TAG: The commit message has 'stable@', perhaps it also needs a 'Fixes:' tag?
total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 93 lines checked
More information about the test-report
mailing list