| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:52:06 +0100
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Roger Quadros <quadros.roger@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] kfifo: add record handling functions
Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 14:19 -0800 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:33:08 +0100
> Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> wrote:
>
> > Add kfifo_in_rec() - puts some record data into the FIFO
> > Add kfifo_out_rec() - gets some record data from the FIFO
> > Add kfifo_from_user_rec() - puts some data from user space into the FIFO
> > Add kfifo_to_user_rec() - gets data from the FIFO and write it to user space
> > Add kfifo_peek_rec() - gets the size of the next FIFO record field
> > Add kfifo_skip_rec() - skip the next fifo out record
> > Add kfifo_avail_rec() - determinate the number of bytes available in a record FIFO
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
> > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> > Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
> > Acked-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/kfifo.h | 328 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > kernel/kfifo.c | 286 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > 2 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff -u -N -r -p kfifo6/include/linux/kfifo.h kfifo7/include/linux/kfifo.h
> > --- kfifo6/include/linux/kfifo.h 2009-11-19 20:54:56.275420767 +0100
> > +++ kfifo7/include/linux/kfifo.h 2009-11-19 20:55:16.596339811 +0100
> > @@ -275,4 +275,332 @@ static inline unsigned int __kfifo_off(s
> > return off & (fifo->size - 1);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * __kfifo_peek_n internal helper function for determinate the length of
> > + * the next record in the fifo
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned int __kfifo_peek_n(struct kfifo *fifo,
> > + unsigned int recsize)
> > +{
> > +#define __KFIFO_GET(fifo, off, shift) \
> > + ((fifo)->buffer[__kfifo_off((fifo), (fifo)->out+(off))] << (shift))
> > +
> > + unsigned int l;
> > +
> > + l = __KFIFO_GET(fifo, 0, 0);
> > +
> > + if (--recsize)
> > + l |= __KFIFO_GET(fifo, 1, 8);
> > +
> > + return l;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * __kfifo_poke_n internal helper function for storing the length of
> > + * the next record into the fifo
> > + */
> > +static inline void __kfifo_poke_n(struct kfifo *fifo,
> > + unsigned int recsize, unsigned int n)
> > +{
> > +#define __KFIFO_PUT(fifo, off, val, shift) \
> > + ( \
> > + (fifo)->buffer[__kfifo_off((fifo), (fifo)->in+(off))] = \
> > + (unsigned char)((val) >> (shift)) \
> > + )
> > +
> > + __KFIFO_PUT(fifo, 0, n, 0);
> > +
> > + if (--recsize)
> > + __KFIFO_PUT(fifo, 1, n, 8);
> > +}
>
> This will leave the __KFIFO_GET and __KFIFO_PUT macros defined in the
> .c files which use this header file. That's messy and undesired, to it
> would be better to #undef these macros as early as possible.
>
> but...
Will be fixed ...
>
> > +static inline unsigned int __kfifo_out_rec(struct kfifo *fifo,
> > + void *to, unsigned int n, unsigned int recsize,
> > + unsigned int *total)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int l;
> > +
> > + if (!recsize) {
> > + l = n;
> > + if (total)
> > + *total = l;
> > + } else {
> > + l = __kfifo_peek_n(fifo, recsize);
> > + if (total)
> > + *total = l;
> > + if (n < l)
> > + return l;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return __kfifo_out_n(fifo, to, l, recsize);
> > +}
>
> The amount of inlining in this header is pretty wild. These are large
> functions! Inlining them will create a large kernel and most likely a
> slower one, due to the increased instruction cache footprint.
>
> So please, let's see a "kfifo: uninline everything" patch?
>
> but...
>
> > +/**
> > + * kfifo_out_rec - gets some record data from the FIFO
> > + * @fifo: the fifo to be used.
> > + * @to: where the data must be copied.
> > + * @n: the size of the destination buffer.
> > + * @recsize: size of record field
> > + * @total: pointer where the total number of to copied bytes should stored
> > + *
> > + * This function copies at most @n bytes from the FIFO to @to and returns the
> > + * number of bytes which cannot be copied.
> > + * A returned value greater than the @n value means that the record doesn't
> > + * fit into the @to buffer.
> > + *
> > + * Note that with only one concurrent reader and one concurrent
> > + * writer, you don't need extra locking to use these functions.
> > + */
> > +static inline __must_check unsigned int kfifo_out_rec(struct kfifo *fifo,
> > + void *to, unsigned int n, unsigned int recsize,
> > + unsigned int *total)
> > +
> > +{
> > + if (!__builtin_constant_p(recsize))
> > + return __kfifo_out_generic(fifo, to, n, recsize, total);
> > + return __kfifo_out_rec(fifo, to, n, recsize, total);
> > +}
>
> OK, so I see that some attention has been paid to the text footprint issue.
>
> But how much, and was it successful?
>
I will think about it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists