Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/vt-d: Fix shift overflow in qi_flush_dev_iotlb
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tursulin@ursulin.net
References: <20171212224250.22173.74201.stgit@gimli.home>
 <20171213071355.GD7780@xz-mi> <20171213085847.3d3245c6@t450s.home>
 <ae778a81-a500-d8d2-5c7e-10630fe42734@amd.com>
 <20171213101518.7807ae4b@t450s.home>
From: "Hook, Gary" <ghook@amd.com>
Message-ID: <b8d7c8fd-8370-a0f0-e5db-f211423d7b9b@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:31:02 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171213101518.7807ae4b@t450s.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2017 17:31:06.2080 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 077ad861-132f-439b-4376-08d5424f4af7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR12MB1209
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1796
Lines: 45

On 12/13/2017 11:15 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:41:47 -0600
> "Hook, Gary" <ghook@amd.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/13/2017 9:58 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 15:13:55 +0800
>>> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 03:43:08PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>   
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>>>> index 9a7ffd13c7f0..87888b102057 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/dmar.c
>>>>> @@ -1345,7 +1345,9 @@ void qi_flush_dev_iotlb(struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 sid, u16 qdep,
>>>>>    	struct qi_desc desc;
>>>>>    
>>>>>    	if (mask) {
>>>>> -		BUG_ON(addr & ((1 << (VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + mask)) - 1));
>>>>> +		BUG_ON((mask > MAX_AGAW_PFN_WIDTH) ||
>>>>> +		       ((mask == MAX_AGAW_PFN_WIDTH) && addr) ||
>>>>> +		       (addr & ((1 << (VTD_PAGE_SHIFT + mask)) - 1)));
>>>>
>>>> Could it work if we just use 1ULL instead of 1 here?  Thanks,
>>>
>>> In either case we're talking about shifting off the end of the
>>> variable, which I understand to be undefined.  Right?  Thanks,
>>
>> How so? Bits fall off the left (MSB) end, zeroes fill in the right (LSB)
>> end. I believe that behavior is pretty set.
> 
> Maybe I'm relying too much on stackoverflow, but:
> 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11270492/what-does-the-c-standard-say-about-bitshifting-more-bits-than-the-width-of-type

No, probably not. I don't have my copy of c99 handy, so can't check it. 
But it is beyond me why any compiler implementation would choose to use 
a rotate instead of a shift... probably a performance issue.

So, yeah, when you have silly parameters, you get what you get.

I'll stick to my suggestion. Which seems unambiguous... but I could be 
wrong.