linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arm: use built-in byte swap function

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, 21 Feb 2013 11:40:54 -0500 (EST)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
To:	Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...escale.com>
Cc:	"Woodhouse, David" <david.woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: use built-in byte swap function

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Kim Phillips wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:29:58 -0500
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:43:18 -0500
> > > Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 09:06 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > > ... in which case there is no harm shipping a .c file and trivially 
> > > > > > enforcing -O2, the rest being equal.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For today's compilers, unless the wind changes.
> > > > 
> > > > We'll adapt if necessary.  Going with -O2 should remain pretty safe anyway.
> > > 
> > > Alas, not so for gcc 4.4 - I had forgotten I had tested
> > > Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.7-1ubuntu2 here:
> > > 
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2101491/
> > > 
> > > add -O2 to that test script and gcc 4.4 *always* emits calls to
> > > __bswap[sd]i2, even with -march=armv6k+.
> 
> argh, sorry - that script was testing support for 
> __builtin_bswap{16,32,64} directly, which isn't the same as testing
> code generation of a byte swap pattern in C.

Still, I'm not as confident as I was about this.

> I'll still try the assembly approach - gcc 4.4's armv6 output looks
> worse than both the pre-armv6 and post-armv6 __arch_swab32
> implementations currently in use:
> 
> mov     ip, sp
> push    {fp, ip, lr, pc}
> sub     fp, ip, #4

You should use -fomit-frame-pointer to compile this.  We don't need a 
frame pointer here, especially for a leaf function that the compiler 
decides to call on its own.

> and     r2, r0, #65280  ; 0xff00
> lsl     ip, r0, #24
> orr     r1, ip, r0, lsr #24
> and     r0, r0, #16711680       ; 0xff0000
> orr     r3, r1, r2, lsl #8
> orr     r0, r3, r0, lsr #8

Other than that, it is true that the above is slightly suboptimal.


Nicolas
--
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/