Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1191369

Re: round_up integer underflow

From Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: round_up integer underflow
Date 2015-07-24 00:30 +0200
Message-ID <pPxa2-3nQ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pPt6p-5Um-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPtg5-65U-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:10:30AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:02:55AM -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > Spencer spotted something nasty in the round_up macro.  We were
> > wondering why round_up() worked differently from ALIGN.  The only real
> > difference between the two patterns is overflow behaviour.  And both
> > version are buggy when used for signed integer types, round_up will
> > underflow on INT_MIN, ALIGN will overflow on INT_MAX.  Since signed
> > integer under/overflows are undefined, we might have subtle bugs lurking
> > in the kernel.
> > 
> > This example program produces a warning when compiling with gcc -O2 or
> > higher.  Clang doesn't warn.  Compiled code behaves correctly with both
> > compilers, but that is largely luck and the same compilers may create
> > wrong behaviour if the surrounding code changes.
> > 
> > #include <limits.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > 
> > #define __round_mask(x, y) ((__typeof__(x))((y)-1))
> > #define round_up(x, y) ((((x)-1) | __round_mask(x, y))+1)
> > #define round_down(x, y) ((x) & ~__round_mask(x, y))
> > 
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > 	int i, r = 8;
> > 
> > 	for (i = INT_MIN; i; i++) {
> > 		printf("%2x: %2x %2x\n", i, round_down(i, r), round_up(i, r));
> > 	}
> > 	return 0;
> > }
> > 
> > I don't have a good answer yet.  We could make round_up check for
> > negative numbers, but I would prefer unconditional code that optimizes
> > down to nothing.  We could rewrite it in assembly, once for each
> > architecture.
> > 
> > Does anyone have better ideas?

You can fix overflow issues but the ALIGN(INT_MAX, a) creating much
smaller value is probably a bug anyway. It should BUG_ON or something
(yes, I'm aware of recent memo).

> #define round_up(x, y) (__typeof__(x)(__round_up((unsigned __typeof__(x)(x)), (y))))
						    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If only... :-(

> I.e. cast x to the matching unsigned type where overflows are
> well-defined, do the rounding, then cast the result back to the original
> type.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

round_up integer underflow Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> - 2015-07-23 20:10 +0200
  Re: round_up integer underflow Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> - 2015-07-23 20:20 +0200
    Re: round_up integer underflow Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 00:30 +0200

csiph-web