From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: 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
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:34:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YliTdb1LjfJoIcFc@xz-m1.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf15209d-2c50-9957-af24-c4f428f213b1@redhat.com>
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 just tried out with <32 bits bitfield and indeed gcc will behave
differently, by having the calculation done with 32bit (eax) rather than
64bit (rax).
The question is for >=32 bits it needs an extra masking instruction, while
that does not exist for the <32bits bitfield.
---8<---
#include <stdio.h>
struct test1 {
unsigned long a:${X};
unsigned long b:10;
};
int main(void)
{
struct test1 val;
val.a = 0x1234;
printf("0x%lx\n", val.a * 16);
return 0;
}
---8<---
When X=20:
0000000000401126 <main>:
401126: 55 push %rbp
401127: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
40112a: 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp
40112e: 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%eax
401131: 25 00 00 f0 ff and $0xfff00000,%eax
401136: 0d 34 12 00 00 or $0x1234,%eax
40113b: 89 45 f8 mov %eax,-0x8(%rbp)
40113e: 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%eax
401141: 25 ff ff 0f 00 and $0xfffff,%eax
401146: c1 e0 04 shl $0x4,%eax <----------- calculation (no further masking)
401149: 89 c6 mov %eax,%esi
40114b: bf 10 20 40 00 mov $0x402010,%edi
401150: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
401155: e8 d6 fe ff ff callq 401030 <printf@plt>
When X=40:
0000000000401126 <main>:
401126: 55 push %rbp
401127: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
40112a: 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp
40112e: 48 8b 45 f8 mov -0x8(%rbp),%rax
401132: 48 ba 00 00 00 00 00 movabs $0xffffff0000000000,%rdx
401139: ff ff ff
40113c: 48 21 d0 and %rdx,%rax
40113f: 48 0d 34 12 00 00 or $0x1234,%rax
401145: 48 89 45 f8 mov %rax,-0x8(%rbp)
401149: 48 b8 ff ff ff ff ff movabs $0xffffffffff,%rax
401150: 00 00 00
401153: 48 23 45 f8 and -0x8(%rbp),%rax
401157: 48 c1 e0 04 shl $0x4,%rax <------------ calculation
40115b: 48 ba ff ff ff ff ff movabs $0xffffffffff,%rdx
401162: 00 00 00
401165: 48 21 d0 and %rdx,%rax <------------ masking (again)
401168: 48 89 c6 mov %rax,%rsi
40116b: bf 10 20 40 00 mov $0x402010,%edi
401170: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
401175: e8 b6 fe ff ff callq 401030 <printf@plt>
That feels a bit less consistent to me, comparing to clang where at least
the behavior keeps the same for whatever length of bits in the bitfields.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-14 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-14 1:07 [PATCH] kvm: selftests: Fix cut-off of addr_gva2gpa lookup Peter Xu
2022-04-14 1:19 ` Peter Xu
2022-04-14 13:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-14 14:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-04-14 21:34 ` Peter Xu [this message]
2022-04-14 22:01 ` Jim Mattson
2022-04-15 0:30 ` Peter Xu
2022-04-14 15:05 ` Peter Xu
2022-04-14 15:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YliTdb1LjfJoIcFc@xz-m1.local \
--to=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.