On Sun, 7 Apr 2019 12:53:25 +0000 Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The warning is caused by call to rorXX(), if the second parameters of
> this function "shift" is zero. In such case UBSAN reports the warning
> for the next expression: (word << (XX - shift), where XX is
> 64, 32, 16, 8 for respectively ror64, ror32, ror16, ror8.
> Fix adds validation of this parameter - in case it's equal zero, no
> need to rotate, just original "word" is to be returned to caller.
>
> The UBSAN undefined behavior warning has been reported for call to
> ror32():
> [ 11.426543] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in ./include/linux/bitops.h:93:33
> [ 11.434045] shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'unsigned int'
hm, do we care?
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ static inline __u64 rol64(__u64 word, unsigned int shift)
> */
> static inline __u64 ror64(__u64 word, unsigned int shift)
> {
> + if (!shift)
> + return word;
> +
> return (word >> shift) | (word << (64 - shift));
> }
Is there any known architecture or compiler for which UL<<64 doesn't
reliably produce zero? Is there any prospect that this will become a
problem in the future?
