[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 07/13] x86: Fix signed shift overflow in MSR_IA32_APICBASE_BASE

[Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com>]

Hi Bin,

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:06:52AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Eugeniu,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:10 AM Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bin,
> >
> > jFYI, I've created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
> > ("UBSAN behavior on left-shifting 1 into the sign bit is dependent on C
> > standard"), to get some recommendation from GCC guys how to handle
> > these warnings in U-Boot.
> 
> Thank you very much for following up with the gcc folks! Let's see how
> they respond.
> 
> BTW: your bug report is elaborate. Well done on the research!
> 
> Regards,
> Bin

I feel like before UBSAN reaches mainline U-Boot, we will make some
friends in the compiler communities. I have raised another bug
report [1], this time to LLVM folks, since U-Boot simply refuses to
boot when built with clang and UBSAN=y.

This new issue is related to the implementation of U-Boot
linker-generated arrays, as summarized in the cover letter [2] of my
series. Somehow, GCC UBSAN cooperates well with the linker-generated
arrays, while Clang UBSAN does not. Hopefully this will be clarified
in [1] and hopefully no significant changes will be needed in
include/linker_lists.h to allow booting -fsanitized clang-built U-Boot.

Regarding the GCC discussion [3], it is relatively settled, but not to
our advantage. GCC folks first clarified (credits to them for that)
how shifting into (not past) the sign bit is defined in the existing
C standards. Specifically, C89/C90 considers this
"implementation-defined", while more recent C standards (C99, C11, C18)
make this "undefined". Since U-Boot is compiled using -std=gnu11,
"shifting into the sign bit" errors look legitimate.

On the other hand, official GCC documentation says [4]:

> As an extension to the C language, GCC does not use the latitude given
> in C99 and C11 only to treat certain aspects of signed ‘<<’ as
> undefined. 

The above quote was used by GCC guys to actually support/convey the idea
that some aspects of left-shifting (e.g. left-shifting into the sign
bit) are still defined in GCC (i.e. they don't lead to UB). If so, then
I am really puzzled, since I do not understand the practicality of
bothering users with errors which reflect what C standard says on paper
instead of how it is implemented in the compiler internals.

This is pretty much the most recent status of the discussion and, as you
can see, it doesn't shed too much light on how to tackle the left-
shifting overflows into the sign bit (fix them, ignore them, roll back
the C standard, etc). This is still to be decided by the U-Boot
community.

[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
[2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/962307/
[3] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87392
[4] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Integers-implementation.html#Integers-implementation

Best regards,
Eugeniu.