All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	jpoimboe@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, dvyukov@google.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, mbenes@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/22] x86,extable: Extend extable functionality
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 21:15:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211105201557.GQ174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YYWKSmHkgdMA2euh@google.com>

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 07:47:22PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 07:17:20PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:

> > C99 is sodding daft wrt signed values. That's why we force -fwrapv and
> > say signed is 2s complement and expect sanity.
> 
> FWIW, -fwrapv was supplanted by -fno-strict-overflow back in 2009 by commit
> a137802ee839 ("Don't use '-fwrapv' compiler option: it's buggy in gcc-4.1.x").
> But I don't think that matters because AFAICT both apply only to "addition,
> subtraction and multiplication".

Right... I think i remember running into that before. I think I yelled
at people at the time for that not being very consistent. If we
explicitly state we want 2s complement, it had damn well be everywhere.

> > > gcc-10 generates a bare "shr", i.e. doesn't special case negative values, and "shr"
> > > is explicitly defined as an unsigned divide.
> > 
> > We hard rely on signed shift right to preserve sign all over the place,
> > how come it goes sideways here? Lemme go stare at asm...
> 
> Huh.  TIL there's actually a use case for this.

Yeah, the canonical pattern for sign extending an n-bit int is:

	(int)(x << (32-n)) >> (32-n)

I think we have macros for that somehwere, but I can never remember what
they're called.

> Anyways, I think the issue is that EX_IMM_MASK is being interpreted as an unsigned
> value by the compiler.  Which I think is legal for a 64-bit kernel?  Because bit 63
> is the MSB, not bit 31.  E.g. this
> 
> 	FIELD_GET((int)EX_IMM_MASK, e->type)
> 
> generates SAR instead of SHR.

Bah, you're right. The compiler is free to interpret a hex constant as
either. At the same time there's only an unsigned suffix, so while we
can force it unsigned, we can't explicitly construct a signed hex
constant.

That's really unfortunate that is... 6.4.4.1 item 5 of the C99 spec
covers this gem :-( I suppose I'll go stick that (int) cast in the
EX_IMM_MASK definition or something.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-05 20:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-04 16:47 [RFC][PATCH 00/22] x86: Remove anonymous out-of-line fixups Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/22] bitfield.h: Fix "type of reg too small for mask" test Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/22] x86,mmx_32: Remove .fixup usage Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 18:00   ` Borislav Petkov
2021-11-05 11:20     ` David Laight
2021-11-04 20:22   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  8:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/22] x86,copy_user_64: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/22] x86,copy_mc_64: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/22] x86,entry_64: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/22] x86,entry_32: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 20:39   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  7:43     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/22] x86,extable: Extend extable functionality Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 21:49   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  7:54     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 10:16       ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-05 17:32   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-05 18:45     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 19:17       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-05 19:32         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 19:47           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-05 20:15             ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-11-05 20:26               ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 22:30                 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/22] x86,msr: Remove .fixup usage Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/22] x86,futex: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/22] x86,uaccess: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 22:28   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/22] x86,xen: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 22:31   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  7:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/22] x86,fpu: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/22] x86,segment: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/22] x86,ftrace: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 22:35   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  7:57     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/22] x86,vmx: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 18:50   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-05 18:17   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-05 18:52     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 20:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-05 22:29       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-06  7:05     ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-06  8:36       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-07 19:13         ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-06  8:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/22] x86,checksum_32: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 17/22] x86,sgx: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 18/22] x86,kvm: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 18:50   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-05  7:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 19/22] x86,usercopy_32: Simplify Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 20/22] x86,usercopy: Remove .fixup usage Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 21/22] x86,word-at-a-time: " Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 23:33   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-05  8:04     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 16:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 22/22] x86: Remove .fixup section Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-04 23:00   ` Josh Poimboeuf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20211105201557.GQ174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.