linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] math128: Introduce {mult,add,cmp}

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:12:20 +0100
From:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] math128: Introduce {mult,add,cmp}_u128

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>> Grow rudimentary u128 support without relying on gcc/libgcc.
>>
>> +#ifndef add_u128
>> +static inline u128 add_u128(u128 a, u128 b)
>> +{
>> +       u128 res;
>> +
>> +       res.hi = a.hi + b.hi;
>> +       res.lo = a.lo + b.lo;
>> +
>> +       if (res.lo < a.lo || res.lo < b.lo)
>> +               res.hi++;
>
> This is wrong. Or at least stupid.
>
> Just do one of the comparisons, not both. If overflow occurs, the
> result will be smaller than *either* of the added numbers, so
> comparing both is just silly and confused.
>
> So just pick one.
>
> Also, it might be worth looking at code generation, to see if it's
> better to just do
>
>    a.hi += b.hi;
>    a.low += b.low;
>    if (a.low < b.low)
>       a.hi++;
>    return a;

I have no idea if it makes a difference, but that if statement can be
written as a.hi += a.low < b.low.  Just an observation.

> because that might make it clear that there are fewer actual values
> live at any particular time. But gcc may not care. Try it.
>
> Also, for the multiply, please make sure gcc knows to do a "32x32->64"
> multiplication, rather than thinking it needs to do full 64x64
> multiplies..

On ARM it does the right thing at least since 4.3, which is the oldest
ARM compiler I have at hand.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@...sr.com
--
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/