Em Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:08:15 +0200 Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > On 22/08/2019 21:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > [PATCH 6/7] media: don't do an unsigned int with a 31 bit shift > > s/unsigned int/signed int ? > > (See below as well.) > > > Doing something like: > > > > i32 foo = 1, bar; > > > > bar = foo << 31; > > For my information, why did you split the expression over two lines, > instead of just using 1 << 31 in the example above? > (Most of the cases fixed involve a literal 1) > > I.e. why didn't you just say "1 << 31 has undefined behavior" ? > > Maybe patch subject can also be changed to "Don't use 1 << foo" ? > > > has an undefined behavior in C, as warned by cppcheck, as we're > > shifting a signed integer. > > Not quite right. Shifting a signed integer is well-defined in some cases. > See paragraph 4 below. For example, 1 << 8 always resolves to 256. I meant to say that, on a 32-bits arch, where a signed integer has 31 bits and we do a 31 bit shift, it will end touching the 32th bit, with is an undefined behavior. I'm changing the description to: media: don't do a 31 bit shift on a signed int On 32-bits archs, a signed integer has 31 bits plus on extra bit for signal. Due to that, touching the 32th bit with something like: int bar = 1 << 31; has an undefined behavior in C on 32 bit architectures, as it touches the signal bit. This is warned by cppcheck. Instead, force the numbers to be unsigned, in order to solve this issue. I guess this makes it clearer. > > 6.5.7 Bitwise shift operators > > 1 Syntax > shift-expression: > additive-expression > shift-expression << additive-expression > shift-expression >> additive-expression > > 2 Constraints > Each of the operands shall have integer type. > > 3 Semantics > The integer promotions are performed on each of the operands. The type of the result is > that of the promoted left operand. If the value of the right operand is negative or is > greater than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand, the behavior is undefined. The problem is here: "greater than or equal to the width of the promoted left operand". A 31 bit shift on a 31 bits value is undefined. In the past, we got real issues like that at the code: gcc on x86 does the shift as expected, so: u32 a = 1 << 32; it results in: on i386: a = 0 on arm: a = 1 I've no idea how LLVM/clang implements this. > > 4 The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with > zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the result is E1 x 2^E2 , reduced modulo > one more than the maximum value representable in the result type. If E1 has a signed > type and non-negative value, and E1 x 2^E2 is representable in the result type, then that is > the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined. > > 5 The result of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has an unsigned type > or if E1 has a signed type and a non-negative value, the value of the result is the integral > part of the quotient of E1 / 2^E2 . If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the > resulting value is implementation-defined. > > > > Instead, force the numbers to be unsigned, in order to solve this > > issue. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/media/dvb-frontends/cx24123.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/pci/bt8xx/bttv-input.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/media/pci/cx18/cx18-ioctl.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/pci/ivtv/ivtv-driver.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/pci/ivtv/ivtv-ioctl.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/media/pci/solo6x10/solo6x10-gpio.c | 6 +++--- > > drivers/media/platform/exynos4-is/mipi-csis.c | 6 +++--- > > drivers/media/platform/fsl-viu.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/platform/mx2_emmaprp.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/platform/pxa_camera.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/core.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/platform/s5p-jpeg/jpeg-regs.h | 10 +++++----- > > drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v5.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/media/platform/s5p-mfc/s5p_mfc_opr_v6.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/radio/radio-gemtek.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/gl861.c | 2 +- > > drivers/media/usb/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-hdw.c | 14 +++++++------- > > drivers/media/usb/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-v4l2.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-ioctl.c | 2 +- > > 19 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/cx24123.c b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/cx24123.c > > index ac519c3eff18..3d84ee17e54c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/cx24123.c > > +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/cx24123.c > > @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ static u32 cx24123_int_log2(u32 a, u32 b) > > u32 div = a / b; > > if (a % b >= b / 2) > > ++div; > > - if (div < (1 << 31)) { > > + if (div < (1UL << 31)) { > > for (exp = 1; div > exp; nearest++) > > exp += exp; > > } > > Did you pick unsigned long (rather than unsigned) because that's what is used > in the BIT macro? Yes. > My concern is that UL is 64-bit wide on some platforms, and > when used in arithmetic expressions, compiler might generate worse code. On Linux, long size is equal to integer size, so I don't think that this is actually a problem. Thanks, Mauro