netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1] tun: Cleanup error handling in tun_set

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:	Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:23:02 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] tun: Cleanup error handling in tun_set_iff()

On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:00:21 pm Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:20:20PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > The code currently looks something like this:
> >
> > 	err = -ENOMEM;
> > 	buf = alloc(...);
> > 	if (!buf)
> > 		goto label;
> >
> > This means that in the common case where 'alloc()' completes without
> > error we are doing an extra, unnecessary assignment where we set the
> > value in 'err'. Now, if we change this slightly to match what I proposed
> > in the patch:
> >
> > 	buf = alloc(...);
> > 	if (!buf) {
> > 		err = -ENOMEM;
> > 		goto label;
> > 	}
> >
> > We eliminate that extra assignment in the case where 'alloc()' completes
> > without error, which should result in more efficient code (less
> > instructions in the common case).  Am I wrong?  If that is the case I
> > would appreciate an explanation ...
>
> Your style potentially introduces a second jump which may end
> up being worse compared to the extra work on a modern CPU.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that possibility.  I suppose the impact of a 
second jump is going to depend quite a bit on the hardware it runs on 
(pipeline depth, branch prediction, etc.) and isn't as easy to quantify as I 
had hoped.  Oh well, I appreciate the explanation anyway :)

-- 
paul moore
linux @ hp

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html