Question about 32-bits paging

[NotSchur]

Hi all!

I'm getting back into osdev and there is one thing I can't figure out about paging.
My code for getting a page table entry from a virtual address looks basically like this

Code: Select all

uint32_t dir_index = DIRECTORY_INDEX(virt);
uint32_t table_index = TABLE_INDEX(virt);

directory_entry_t* dir = (directory_entry_t*) 0xFFFFF000;
page_t* table = ((uint32_t*) 0xFFC00000) + (0x400 * dir_index);

if (dir[dir_index] & PAGE_PRESENT) {
	return &table[table_index];
}

It's about the same code given in the wiki page about paging (https://wiki.osdev.org/Paging#Manipulation) and it works like a charm.

My question: why is table not calculated like in the following code? Why does my current code work?

Code: Select all

page_t* table = ((uint32_t*) 0xFFC00000) + (dir_index << 12);

Why do we multiply the index by 0x400 (i.e left-shift by 10) instead of multiplying by 0x1000? Multiplying by 0x400 is like left-shifting by 10 bits, so the index in the page directory should be mangled by 2 bits... I don't get it. Isn't that address translated the same way every other linear address is?

That's the last thing standing in my way for understanding paging

[alexfru]

Code: Select all

page_t* table = ((uint32_t*) 0xFFC00000) + (0x400 * dir_index);

My question: why is table not calculated like in the following code? Why does my current code work?

Code: Select all

page_t* table = ((uint32_t*) 0xFFC00000) + (dir_index << 12);

Why do we multiply the index by 0x400 (i.e left-shift by 10) instead of multiplying by 0x1000? Multiplying by 0x400 is like left-shifting by 10 bits, so the index in the page directory should be mangled by 2 bits... I don't get it.

It's C. You're adding to a pointer to uint32_t. Adding 1 advances the pointer to the next uint32_t (4 bytes away).

[linguofreak]

My question: why is table not calculated like in the following code? Why does my current code work?

Code: Select all

page_t* table = ((uint32_t*) 0xFFC00000) + (dir_index << 12);

To expand on alexfru's response, if this code snippet were instead:

Code: Select all

page_t* table = (uint32_t*)((0xFFC00000) + (dir_index << 12)); 

So that you cast to a pointer *after* adding dir_index, it should work identically to your code.

[NotSchur]

That makes perfect sense now! Kicking myself for not having spotted this
Thanks a lot to both of you!