linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "powerpc/64: Fix checksum folding in csum

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:   Thu, 17 May 2018 09:38:10 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
        Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@...ia.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "powerpc/64: Fix checksum folding in csum_add()"

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:34:37AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> This reverts commit 6ad966d7303b70165228dba1ee8da1a05c10eefe.
> 
> That commit was pointless, because csum_add() sums two 32 bits
> values, so the sum is 0x1fffffffe at the maximum.
> And then when adding upper part (1) and lower part (0xfffffffe),
> the result is 0xffffffff which doesn't carry.
> Any lower value will not carry either.
> 
> And behind the fact that this commit is useless, it also kills the
> whole purpose of having an arch specific inline csum_add()
> because the resulting code gets even worse than what is obtained
> with the generic implementation of csum_add()

:-)

> And the reverted implementation for PPC64 gives:
> 
> 0000000000000240 <.csum_add>:
>  240:	7c 84 1a 14 	add     r4,r4,r3
>  244:	78 80 00 22 	rldicl  r0,r4,32,32
>  248:	7c 80 22 14 	add     r4,r0,r4
>  24c:	78 83 00 20 	clrldi  r3,r4,32
>  250:	4e 80 00 20 	blr

If you really, really, *really* want to optimise this you could
make it:

	rldimi r3,r3,0,32
	rldimi r4,r4,0,32
	add r3,r3,r4
	srdi r3,r3,32
	blr

which is the same size, but has a shorter critical path length.  Very
analogous to how you fold 64->32.


Segher