Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751699AbaDALQV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:16:21 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:42149 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751410AbaDALQS (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 07:16:18 -0400 From: Luis Henriques To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , John Stultz , "David S. Miller" , Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Eric Dumazet , Kevin Easton , Ruchi Kandoi , Luis Henriques Subject: [PATCH 3.11 004/144] jiffies: Avoid undefined behavior from signed overflow Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:13:28 +0100 Message-Id: <1396350948-29910-5-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.9.1 In-Reply-To: <1396350948-29910-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> References: <1396350948-29910-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> X-Extended-Stable: 3.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 3.11.10.7 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: "Paul E. McKenney" commit 5a581b367b5df0531265311fc681c2abd377e5e6 upstream. According to the C standard 3.4.3p3, overflow of a signed integer results in undefined behavior. This commit therefore changes the definitions of time_after(), time_after_eq(), time_after64(), and time_after_eq64() to avoid this undefined behavior. The trick is that the subtraction is done using unsigned arithmetic, which according to 6.2.5p9 cannot overflow because it is defined as modulo arithmetic. This has the added (though admittedly quite small) benefit of shortening four lines of code by four characters each. Note that the C standard considers the cast from unsigned to signed to be implementation-defined, see 6.3.1.3p3. However, on a two's-complement system, an implementation that defines anything other than a reinterpretation of the bits is free to come to me, and I will be happy to act as a witness for its being committed to an insane asylum. (Although I have nothing against saturating arithmetic or signals in some cases, these things really should not be the default when compiling an operating-system kernel.) Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Cc: John Stultz Cc: "David S. Miller" Cc: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Eric Dumazet Cc: Kevin Easton [ paulmck: Included time_after64() and time_after_eq64(), as suggested by Eric Dumazet, also fixed commit message.] Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett Cc: Ruchi Kandoi Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques --- include/linux/jiffies.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/jiffies.h b/include/linux/jiffies.h index 97ba4e7..d235e88 100644 --- a/include/linux/jiffies.h +++ b/include/linux/jiffies.h @@ -101,13 +101,13 @@ static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) #define time_after(a,b) \ (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \ typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \ - ((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0)) + ((long)((b) - (a)) < 0)) #define time_before(a,b) time_after(b,a) #define time_after_eq(a,b) \ (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \ typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \ - ((long)(a) - (long)(b) >= 0)) + ((long)((a) - (b)) >= 0)) #define time_before_eq(a,b) time_after_eq(b,a) /* @@ -130,13 +130,13 @@ static inline u64 get_jiffies_64(void) #define time_after64(a,b) \ (typecheck(__u64, a) && \ typecheck(__u64, b) && \ - ((__s64)(b) - (__s64)(a) < 0)) + ((__s64)((b) - (a)) < 0)) #define time_before64(a,b) time_after64(b,a) #define time_after_eq64(a,b) \ (typecheck(__u64, a) && \ typecheck(__u64, b) && \ - ((__s64)(a) - (__s64)(b) >= 0)) + ((__s64)((a) - (b)) >= 0)) #define time_before_eq64(a,b) time_after_eq64(b,a) #define time_in_range64(a, b, c) \ -- 1.9.1 -- 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/