Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Fri Aug 21 2015 - 04:09:07 EST


Wrong fix, though. Instead we should change it to use the set instruction, which would also make it easier to use the CC_SET/CC_OUT proposed macros to use assembly out in the future.

The downside with set is that it only sets a single byte, the upside is that it always outputs 0 or 1, and apparently if the output variable is your bool gcc can use that for optimization.


On August 20, 2015 11:51:03 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>* Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86
>> with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu().
>> cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if the cpu is set in cpumask and
>> 0 otherwise.
>>
>> However, cpumask_test_cpu() returns -1 if the cpu in the cpumask is
>> set and 0 otherwise. This happens because cpumask_test_cpu() calls
>> test_bit() which is a define that will call variable_test_bit().
>>
>> variable_test_bit() calls the assembler instruction sbb (Subtract
>> with Borrow, " Subtracts the source from the destination, and
>subtracts 1
>> extra if the Carry Flag is set. Results are returned in "dest".)
>>
>> A bit match results in -1 being returned from variable_test_bit() if
>a
>> match occurs, not 1 as the function is supposed to. This can be
>easily
>> resolved by adding a "!!" to force 0 or 1 as a return.
>>
>> It looks like the code never does, for example, (test_bit() == 1) so
>this
>> change should not have any impact.
>>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> index cfe3b95..a87a5fb 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
>> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static inline int variable_test_bit(long nr,
>volatile const unsigned long *addr)
>> : "=r" (oldbit)
>> : "m" (*(unsigned long *)addr), "Ir" (nr));
>>
>> - return oldbit;
>> + return !!oldbit;
>> }
>>
>> #if 0 /* Fool kernel-doc since it doesn't do macros yet */
>
>Ok, I think this is a good fix to improve the robustness of this
>primitive, unless
>someone objects.
>
>I tried to find the CPU hotplug code that broke with cpu_online()
>returning -1 but
>failed - all current mainline usage sites seem to be testing for
>nonzero in one
>way or another. Could you please point it out?
>
>Thanks,
>
> Ingo

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/