Re: [PATCH 3/7] ACPI/IORT: Handle memory address size limits as limits

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2023-12-11 3:30 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:01:27PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2023-12-11 1:27 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 05:43:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
Return the Root Complex/Named Component memory address size limit as an
inclusive limit value, rather than an exclusive size.  This saves us
having to special-case 64-bit overflow, and simplifies our caller too.

Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
---
   drivers/acpi/arm64/dma.c  |  9 +++------
   drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 18 ++++++++----------
   include/linux/acpi_iort.h |  4 ++--
   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

[...]

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
index 6496ff5a6ba2..eb64d8e17dd1 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ int iort_iommu_configure_id(struct device *dev, const u32 *input_id)
   { return -ENODEV; }
   #endif
-static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
+static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *limit)
   {
   	struct acpi_iort_node *node;
   	struct acpi_iort_named_component *ncomp;
@@ -1384,13 +1384,12 @@ static int nc_dma_get_range(struct device *dev, u64 *size)
   		return -EINVAL;
   	}
-	*size = ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64 ? U64_MAX :
-			1ULL<<ncomp->memory_address_limit;
+	*limit = (1ULL << ncomp->memory_address_limit) - 1;

The old code handled 'ncomp->memory_address_limit >= 64' -- why is it safe
to drop that? You mention it in the cover letter, so clearly I'm missing
something!

Because an unsigned shift by 64 or more generates 0 (modulo 2^64), thus
subtracting 1 results in the correct all-bits-set value for an inclusive
64-bit limit.

Oh, I'd have thought you'd have gotten one of those "left shift count >=
width of type" warnings if you did that.

Compilers might give such a warning if it was a constant shift whose size was visible at compile time, but even then only because compilers seem to have a vendetta against us relying on the well-defined behaviours of unsigned integer overflow (it's only *signed* shifts which are UB if the result is unrepresentable).

Cheers,
Robin.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux