* [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
@ 2019-02-11 17:09 Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2019-02-11 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon, Boqun Feng, Ingo Molnar, Paul McKenney; +Cc: linux-kernel
Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
words I feel.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
--- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
+++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
@@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
+TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
+-----
+
+While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
+respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
+(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
+2s-complement.
+
+Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
+unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
+
+There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
+signed types.
+
+With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
+P1236R1.
+
SEMANTICS
---------
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
2019-02-11 17:09 [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned Peter Zijlstra
@ 2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-11 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-12 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
2019-02-13 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2019-02-11 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Boqun Feng, Ingo Molnar, Paul McKenney, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:09:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
>
> There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
> words I feel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>
>
> +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
> +-----
> +
> +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
> +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
> +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
> +2s-complement.
> +
> +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
> +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
> +
> +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
> +signed types.
> +
> +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
> +P1236R1.
> +
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
@ 2019-02-11 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2019-02-11 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Boqun Feng, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:28:00PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:09:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
> >
> > There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
> > words I feel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > ---
> > Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
> > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
> >
> >
> > +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
> > +-----
> > +
> > +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
> > +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
> > +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
> > +2s-complement.
> > +
> > +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
> > +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
> > +
> > +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
> > +signed types.
> > +
> > +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
> > +P1236R1.
> > +
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Queued with Will's ack, thank you both!
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
2019-02-11 17:09 [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
@ 2019-02-12 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
2019-02-12 1:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Boqun Feng @ 2019-02-12 1:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Will Deacon, Ingo Molnar, Paul McKenney, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1464 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:09:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
>
> There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
> words I feel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
FWIW
Acked-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Regards,
Boqun
> ---
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>
>
> +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
> +-----
> +
> +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
> +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
> +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
> +2s-complement.
> +
> +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
> +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
> +
> +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
> +signed types.
> +
> +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
> +P1236R1.
> +
>
> SEMANTICS
> ---------
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
2019-02-12 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
@ 2019-02-12 1:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2019-02-12 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boqun Feng; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:03:55AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:09:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
> >
> > There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
> > words I feel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> FWIW
>
> Acked-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Applied, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> > ---
> > Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> > @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
> > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
> >
> >
> > +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
> > +-----
> > +
> > +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
> > +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
> > +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
> > +2s-complement.
> > +
> > +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
> > +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
> > +
> > +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
> > +signed types.
> > +
> > +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
> > +P1236R1.
> > +
> >
> > SEMANTICS
> > ---------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned
2019-02-11 17:09 [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-12 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
@ 2019-02-13 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2019-02-13 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Will Deacon, Boqun Feng, Paul McKenney, linux-kernel
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Clarify the whole signed vs unsigned issue for atomic_t.
>
> There has been enough confusion on this topic to warrant a few explicit
> words I feel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index 913396ac5824..dca3fb0554db 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -56,6 +56,23 @@ The 'full' API consists of (atomic64_ and atomic_long_ prefixes omitted for
> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
>
>
> +TYPES (signed vs unsigned)
s/vs/vs.
> +-----
> +
> +While atomic_t, atomic_long_t and atomic64_t use int, long and s64
> +respectively (for hysterical raisins), the kernel uses -fno-strict-overflow
> +(which implies -fwrapv) and defines signed overflow to behave like
> +2s-complement.
> +
> +Therefore, an explicitly unsigned variant of the atomic ops is strictly
> +unnecessary and we can simply cast, there is no UB.
s/UB/Undefined Behavior
Had to read that twice. Acronyms Seriously Suck.
> +
> +There was a bug in UBSAN prior to GCC-8 that would generate UB warnings for
> +signed types.
> +
> +With this we also conform to the C/C++ _Atomic behaviour and things like
> +P1236R1.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-13 7:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-11 17:09 [PATCH] Documentation/atomic_t: Clarify signed vs unsigned Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-11 17:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-02-11 21:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-12 1:03 ` Boqun Feng
2019-02-12 1:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-02-13 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).