On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:11:57AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:26:05AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

quoted

   check_shift_overflow(a, s, d) {
       unsigned _nbits = 8*sizeof(a);
       typeof(a) _a = (a);
       typeof(s) _s = (s);
       typeof(d) _d = (d);

       *_d = ((u64)(_a) << (_s & (_nbits-1)));
       _s >= _nbits || (_s > 0 && (_a >> (_nbits - _s -
   is_signed_type(a))) != 0);
   }

Those types are not quite right.. What about this?

    check_shift_overflow(a, s, d) ({
        unsigned int _nbits = 8*sizeof(d) - is_signed_type(d);
        typeof(d) _a = a;  // Shift is always performed on type 'd'
        typeof(s) _s = s;
        typeof(d) _d = d;

        *_d = (_a << (_s & (_nbits-1)));

	(((*_d) >> (_s & (_nbits-1)) != _a);
    })

And can we use mathamatcial invertability to prove no overlow and
bound _a ? As above.

Rasmus and Jason,

Thanks for the feedback.
The reason why I introduced function, because wanted to reuse
check_mul_overflow macro, but for any reasons which I don't remember
now, I had hard time to fix compilation errors.

Anyway, I'll resubmit.

Thanks

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html