[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ef86dd9v.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:34:20 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: erhard_f@...lbox.org, jack@...e.cz, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64s: Fix possible corruption on big endian due to pgd/pud_present()
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 08:22:12AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:55:11PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 05:23:39PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > > In v4.20 we changed our pgd/pud_present() to check for _PAGE_PRESENT
>> > > rather than just checking that the value is non-zero, e.g.:
>> > >
>> > > static inline int pgd_present(pgd_t pgd)
>> > > {
>> > > - return !pgd_none(pgd);
>> > > + return (pgd_raw(pgd) & cpu_to_be64(_PAGE_PRESENT));
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately this is broken on big endian, as the result of the
>> > > bitwise && is truncated to int, which is always zero because
>>
>> (Bitwise "&" of course).
>>
>> > Not sure why that should happen, why is the result an int? What
>> > causes the casting of pgd_t & be64 to be truncated to an int.
>>
>> Yes, it's not obvious as written... It's simply that the return type of
>> pgd_present is int. So it is truncated _after_ the bitwise and.
>>
>
> Thanks, I am surprised the compiler does not complain about the truncation
> of bits. I wonder if we are missing -Wconversion
Good luck with that :)
What I should start doing is building with it enabled and then comparing
the output before and after commits to make sure we're not introducing
new cases.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists