linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize relay_alloc_page_array() slightly by using vzalloc rather than vmalloc and memset

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]

Message-ID: <20101101122237.GM6023@cr0.nay.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Nov 2010 20:22:37 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize relay_alloc_page_array() slightly by using
 vzalloc rather than vmalloc and memset

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>* Jesper Juhl (jj@...osbits.net) wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> 
>> > * Jesper Juhl (jj@...osbits.net) wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > > 
>> > > We can optimize kernel/relay.c::relay_alloc_page_array() slightly by using 
>> > > vzalloc. The patch makes these changes:
>> > > 
>> > >  - use vzalloc instead of vmalloc+memset.
>> > >  - remove redundant local variable 'array'.
>> > >  - declare local 'pa_size' as const.
>> > 
>> > Hrm ? How does declaring a local variable as const helps the compiler in
>> > any way ?
>> > 
>> 
>> Hmm, probably not very much in this case (but it doesn't hurt either ;) - 
>> actually, removing the const yielded the exact same result, so it's 
>> "not at all" in this case). 
>> That bit came from my "build-in" tendency to declare stuff const when it 
>> obviously doesn't change/nor should. It's a habbit..
>
>Which looks to me like a misunderstanding of the C99 standard. What you
>do is:
>
>static struct page **relay_alloc_page_array(unsigned int n_pages)
>{
>	const size_t pa_size = n_pages * sizeof(struct page *);
>	...
>}
>
>So the compiler has no choice but to emit code that will fill in the
>value of pa_size at runtime, because it depends on "n_pages", a
>parameter received by the function. So pa_size is everything but
>constant.
>
>The C99 standard, section 6.7.3 (Type qualifiers) states:
>
>"The implementation may place a const object that is not volatile in a
>read-only region of storage. Moreover, the implementation need not
>allocate storage for such an object if its address is never used."
>


This is not enforced by C99. This is C, not C++. :)

>So maybe gcc is kind here and it just removes this const specifier
>without complaining, but a different compiler might be more strict and
>fail to compile because you would be dynamically assigning a value to a
>variable placed in read-only storage.
>

That compiler would be broken if it exists. Also, I doubt linux kernel
could be compiled with other compilers than gcc (except icc?).
--
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/