linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] dma-mapping: work around clang bug

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXmd9NURXvjVQeUe06QQP=degkY+VNUAXwO5eHDm3Lh0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:34:36 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        "open list:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] dma-mapping: work around clang bug

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:28 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:17 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> > On 2019-03-07 8:52 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > -#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)      (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<(n))-1))
> > > +/* double shift to work around https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38789 */
> > > +#define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)      (((n) == 64) ? ~0ULL : ((1ULL<<((n)-1))<<1)-1)
> >
> > I think that now makes DMA_BIT_MASK(0) undefined - that shouldn't matter
> > in most cases, but it could potentially happen at runtime where callers
> > use a non-constant argument. However, it also means we don't need to
> > special-case 64 any more (since that's there to avoid the same thing
> > anyway), so we could simply flip that to handle 0 instead.
>
> Yes, good idea.
>
> > FWIW I'd be very tempted to fold in the second shift as "2ULL<<((n)-1)",
> > but that may not be to everyone's taste.
>
> I like that. So shall we do this?
>
> /*
>  * Shifting '2' instead of '1' because of
>  * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38789
>  */
> #define DMA_BIT_MASK(n)    (((n) == 0) ? 0ULL : ((2ULL<<((n)-1)))-1)

Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds