Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     "'Kirill A. Shutemov'" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Implement Linear Address Masking support
In-Reply-To: <Yn0UmdTOdceX1g05@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220511022751.65540-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220511022751.65540-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <fc54d360620d436f93785ae5e9f8a23f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <Yn0UmdTOdceX1g05@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 17:06:41 +0200
Message-ID: <87v8uavlha.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 12 2022 at 15:07, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:01:07PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>> > +static inline int64_t sign_extend64(uint64_t value, int index)
>> > +{
>> > +    int shift =3D 63 - index;
>> > +    return (int64_t)(value << shift) >> shift;
>> > +}
>>=20
>> Shift of signed integers are UB.
>
> Citation needed.

I'll bite :)

C11/19: 6.5.7 Bitwise shift operators

  4 The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated
    bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of
    the result is E1 =C3=97 2E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum
    value representable in the result type. If E1 has a signed type and
    nonnegative value, and E1 =C3=97 2E2 is representable in the result typ=
e,
    then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is
    undefined.

This is irrelevant for the case above because the left shift is on an
unsigned integer. The interesting part is this:

  5 The result of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1
    has an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a nonnegative
    value, the value of the result is the integral part of the quotient
    of E1/2E2.  If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the
    resulting value is implementation-defined.

So it's not UB, it's implementation defined. The obvious choice is to
keep LSB set, i.e. arithmetic shift, what both GCC and clang do.

Thanks,

        tglx