public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox