linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: fix check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110809214646.GA3719@joi.lan>
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2011 23:46:46 +0200
From:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix check_bytes() for slub debugging

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:46:09AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 09 août 2011 à 18:38 +0900, Akinobu Mita a écrit :
> > 2011/8/9 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> > 
> > >> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > >> > index eb5a8f9..5695f92 100644
> > >> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > >> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > >> > @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static u8 *check_bytes(u8 *start, u8 value, unsigned int bytes)
> > >> >             return check_bytes8(start, value, bytes);
> > >> >
> > >> >     value64 = value | value << 8 | value << 16 | value << 24;
> > >> > -   value64 = value64 | value64 << 32;
> > >> > +   value64 = (value64 & 0xffffffff) | value64 << 32;
> > >> >     prefix = 8 - ((unsigned long)start) % 8;
> > >> >
> > >> >     if (prefix) {
> > >>
> > >> Still buggy I am afraid. Could we use the following ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>       value64 = value;
> > >>       value64 |= value64 << 8;
> > >>       value64 |= value64 << 16;
> > >>       value64 |= value64 << 32;
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, 'buggy' was not well chosen.
> > >
> > > Another possibility would be to use a multiply if arch has a fast
> > > multiplier...
> > >
> > >
> > >        value64 = value;
> > > #if defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER) && BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> > >        value64 *= 0x0101010101010101;
> > > #elif defined(ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER)
> > >        value64 *= 0x01010101;
> > >        value64 |= value64 << 32;
> > > #else
> > >        value64 |= value64 << 8;
> > >        value64 |= value64 << 16;
> > >        value64 |= value64 << 32;
> > > #endif
> > 
> > I don't really care about which one should be used.  So tell me if I need
> > to resend it with this improvement.
> 
> It would be nice to fix all bugs while we review this code.
> 
> Lets push your patch and I'll submit a patch for next kernel.
> 
> For example, following code is suboptimal :
> 
>         prefix = 8 - ((unsigned long)start) % 8;
> 
>         if (prefix) {
>                 u8 *r = check_bytes8(start, value, prefix);
>                 if (r)
>                         return r;
>                 start += prefix;
>                 bytes -= prefix;
>         }
> 
> 
> Since we always have prefix = 8 if 'start' is longword aligned, so we
> call check_bytes8() at least once with 8 bytes to compare...

Yeah. 
 
> Also, 32bit arches should be taken into account properly.

At least on x86_32 reading 8 bytes is faster than 4 (I benchmarked it - IIRC
reading 8 bytes speeds up by a factor of ~5 and reading 4 only by ~3.5) 


Marcin

--
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/