lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: drivers: random: Shift out-of-bounds in _mix_pool_bytes
From
Date
On Oct 24, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2014 09:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:23:35AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i >> 32 may happen to be "i", but is there anything that prevents the compiler from returning, let's say, 42?
>>>
>>> Not really, although gcc seems to opt for the 'sane' option and emit
>>> the instruction and let the arch figure out how to deal with it.
>>> Hence the 'fun' difference between x86 and ARM.
>>
>> It's interesting how many different views on undefined behaviour there are between kernel folks.
>>
>> Everything between Ted Ts'o saying that GCC can launch nethack on oversized shifts, to DaveM saying he will file a GCC bug if the
>> behaviour isn't sane w.r.t to memcpy().
>
> One of the benefits of fixing such issues (or not letting them into
> code in the first place) is just saving numerous hours of top-notch
> engineers spent on disputes like this.

By the principle of least surprise, I would expect "__u32 >> N", where
N >= 32 to return zero instead of random garbage. For N < 32 it will
return progressively smaller numbers, until it has shifted away all of
the set bits, at which turn it will return 0. For it suddenly to jump
up once N = 32 is used, is counter-intuitive.

Cheers, Andreas





[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-25 00:21    [W:0.123 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site