linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V5 3/3] arm64:add bitrev.h file to support rbit instruction

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: <CAKv+Gu9g5Q6fjPUy+P8YxkeDrH+bdO4kKGnxTQZRFhQpgPxaPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:26:42 +0100
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	"Wang, Yalin" <Yalin.Wang@...ymobile.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akinobu.mita@...il.com" <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V5 3/3] arm64:add bitrev.h file to support rbit instruction

On 30 October 2014 13:01, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:52:00AM +0000, Wang, Yalin wrote:
>> This patch add bitrev.h file to support rbit instruction,
>> so that we can do bitrev operation by hardware.
>> Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang <yalin.wang@...ymobile.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig              |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/bitrev.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/bitrev.h
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> index 9532f8d..b1ec1dd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ config ARM64
>>       select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ
>>       select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND
>>       select HAVE_ARCH_AUDITSYSCALL
>> +     select HAVE_ARCH_BITREVERSE
>>       select HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL
>>       select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB
>>       select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/bitrev.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bitrev.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..292a5de
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/bitrev.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>> +#ifndef __ASM_ARM64_BITREV_H
>> +#define __ASM_ARM64_BITREV_H
>> +
>> +static __always_inline __attribute_const__ u32 __arch_bitrev32(u32 x)
>> +{
>> +     if (__builtin_constant_p(x)) {
>> +             x = (x >> 16) | (x << 16);
>> +             x = ((x & 0xFF00FF00) >> 8) | ((x & 0x00FF00FF) << 8);
>> +             x = ((x & 0xF0F0F0F0) >> 4) | ((x & 0x0F0F0F0F) << 4);
>> +             x = ((x & 0xCCCCCCCC) >> 2) | ((x & 0x33333333) << 2);
>> +             return ((x & 0xAAAAAAAA) >> 1) | ((x & 0x55555555) << 1);
>
> Shouldn't this part be in the generic code?
>
>> +     }
>> +     __asm__ ("rbit %w0, %w1" : "=r" (x) : "r" (x));
>
> You can write this more neatly as:
>
>   asm ("rbit %w0, %w0" : "+r" (x));
>

This forces GCC to use the same register as input and output, which
doesn't necessarily result in the fastest code. (e.g., if the
un-bitrev()'ed value is reused again afterwards).
On the other hand, the original notation does allow GCC to use the
same register, but doesn't force it to, so I prefer the original one.

-- 
Ard.
--
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/