[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180226084602.GR21977@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 02:46:02 -0600
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/21] powerpc: Avoid comparison of unsigned long >= 0 in pfn_valid
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:32:03AM +0100, Christophe LEROY wrote:
> Le 25/02/2018 à 18:22, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> >-#define pfn_valid(pfn) ((pfn) >= ARCH_PFN_OFFSET && (pfn) <
> >max_mapnr)
> >+#define pfn_valid(pfn) \
> >+ (((pfn) - ARCH_PFN_OFFSET) < (max_mapnr - ARCH_PFN_OFFSET))
>
> What will happen when ARCH_PFN_OFFSET is not nul and pfn is lower than
> ARCH_PFN_OFFSET ?
It will work fine.
Say you are asking for a <= x < b so (in actual integers, no overflow)
that is 0 <= x-a < b-a and you also assume x-a overflows, so that we
are actually comparing x-a+M < b-a with M = 2**32 or such (the maximum
value in the unsigned integer type plus one). This comparison is
obviously always false.
(It also works if b < a btw).
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists