Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86/extable: switch to using FIELD_GET_SIGNED()

[Yury Norov]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 01:24:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 01:36:13PM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The EX_DATA register is laid out such that EX_DATA_IMM occupied MSB.
> > It's done to make sure that FIELD_GET() will sign-extend the IMM
> > field during extraction.
> > 
> > To enforce that, all EX_DATA masks are made signed integers. This
> > works, but relies on the particular implementation of FIELD_GET(),
> > i.e. masking then shifting, not vice versa; and the particular
> > placement of the fields in the register.
> 
> I don't think the order of the mask and shift matters in this case. If
> we were to first shift down and then mask, it would still work (after
> all, the mask would also need to be shifted and would also get sign
> extended, effectively ending up as -1).
 
FIELD_GET() doesn't require mask to be signed when a reg is signed, so
shifting mask may become zero-extended in an alternative implementation:

        (reg >> __bf_shf(mask)) & (mask >> __bf_shf(mask)

This all is hypothetical, anyways.

> But yes, this very much depends on the signed field being the topmost
> field and including the MSB.

This is the part I dislike mostly. This would look just like undefined
behavior for the API user: depending on fields placement or type of the
inputs, sometimes FIELD_GET() sign-extendeds the field, and sometimes
not. 

We could likely force FIELD_GET() to treat both reg and mask as unsigned
types, and state that explicitly in the documentation.