Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:30:04 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: selftests: Fix cut-off of addr_gva2gpa lookup
Message-ID: <Yli8jJWmOt9Qqjbi@xz-m1.local>
References: <20220414010703.72683-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <Ylgn/Jw+FMIFqqc0@google.com>
 <bf15209d-2c50-9957-af24-c4f428f213b1@redhat.com>
 <YliTdb1LjfJoIcFc@xz-m1.local>
 <CALMp9eRjNd5_VFOsAoANkoaCTkKSHp3awrABZ5LR20+VoXZuAA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eRjNd5_VFOsAoANkoaCTkKSHp3awrABZ5LR20+VoXZuAA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:01:04PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:36 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 04:14:22PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 4/14/22 15:56, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > - return (pte[index[0]].pfn * vm->page_size) + (gva & 0xfffu);
> > > > > + return ((vm_paddr_t)pte[index[0]].pfn * vm->page_size) + (gva & 0xfffu);
> > > > This is but one of many paths that can get burned by pfn being 40 bits.  The
> > > > most backport friendly fix is probably to add a pfn=>gpa helper and use that to
> > > > place the myriad "pfn * vm->page_size" instances.
> > > >
> > > > For a true long term solution, my vote is to do away with the bit field struct
> > > > and use #define'd masks and whatnot.
> > >
> > > Yes, bitfields larger than 32 bits are a mess.
> >
> > It's very interesting to know this..
> 
> I don't think the undefined behavior is restricted to extended
> bit-fields. Even for regular bit-fields, the C99 spec says, "A
> bit-field shall have a type that is a qualified or unqualified version
> of _Bool, signed
> int, unsigned int, or some other implementation-defined type." One
> might assume that even the permissive final clause refers to
> fundamental language types, but I suppose "n-bit integer" meets the
> strict definition of a "type,"
> for arbitrary values of n.

Fair enough.

I just noticed it actually make sense to have such a behavior, because in
the case of A*B where A is the bitfield (<32 bits) and when B is an int
(=32bits, page_size in the test case or a default constant value which will
also be treated as int/uint).

Then it's simply extending the smaller field into the same size as the
bigger one, as 40bits*32bits goes into a 40bits output which needs some
proper masking if calculated with RAX, while a e.g. 20bits*32bits goes into
32bits, in which case no further masking needed.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu