Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756882AbcJ3Pd3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:33:29 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:34536 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753429AbcJ3Pd2 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:33:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/sem: ensure we left shift a ULL rather than a 32 bit
 integer
To: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
References: <20161028181129.7311-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <8570d3d4-aeaf-7d2e-7d04-3234264959fd@colorfullife.com>
 <86085f85-e60f-8942-ccdd-a545a7c949ce@canonical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Message-ID: <1e0bacea-d3f1-a793-9e23-5e175c33346e@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 16:33:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86085f85-e60f-8942-ccdd-a545a7c949ce@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1402
Lines: 50

On 10/28/2016 09:29 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 28/10/16 20:21, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>> On 10/28/2016 08:11 PM, Colin King wrote:
>> [...]
>>> --- a/ipc/sem.c
>>> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
>>> @@ -1839,7 +1839,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct
>>> sembuf __user *, tsops,
>>>          max = 0;
>>>        for (sop = sops; sop < sops + nsops; sop++) {
>>> -        unsigned long mask = 1 << ((sop->sem_num) % BITS_PER_LONG);
>>> +        unsigned long mask = 1ULL << ((sop->sem_num) % BITS_PER_LONG);
>>>    
>> Why 1ULL? Is 1UL not sufficient?
> For example, 1UL i386 is 32 bits, where as 1ULL is 64.
Exactly: on i386, 'unsigned long" is 32 bits. BITS_PER_LONG is 32.
Thus with 1UL, the code should be correct.
With 1ULL & -Wconversion, gcc would even report a warning:
> gcc -m32 -Wall -Wconversion -O1 test.c
> test.c: In function ‘main’:
> test.c:13:6: warning: conversion to ‘long unsigned int’ from ‘long 
> long unsigned int’ may alter its value [-Wconversion]
>    j= 1ULL << k;
>       ^~~~

test.c:
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>     unsigned long j;
>     int i;
>
>     for (i=1;i<argc;i++) {
>         long k;
>
>         k=atoi(argv[i]);
>         j= 1ULL << k;
>         printf("%d: %lu %ld.\n", i, j, k);
>     }
>     return 0;
> }
>

--
     Manfred
(still thinks "1UL" is what is required)