linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: find_*

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

Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:14:07 +0100
From:	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
	davem@...emloft.net, dborkman@...hat.com,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, klimov.linux@...il.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	msalter@...hat.com, takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, tgraf@...g.ch,
	valentinrothberg@...il.com, yury.norov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation

[for some reason google decided to put this in my spam folder, hrmpf]

On Mon, Feb 09 2015, "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I screwed up the bit-twiddling while messing with various options.
> I was trying to get size == 32 to work; that should have been:
>
>> 	tmp &= (2UL << ((size-1) % BITS_PER_LONG)) - 1;	/* Mask last word */
>
> And you're right that LAST_WORD_MASK is a good wrapper.
>

Well, it's not my invention, I just misremembered the
name. linux/bitmap.h already exposes BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK.

> Vasrious working solutions include:
> #define LAST_WORD_MASK(bits) 	((2UL << (bits-1) % BITS_PER_LONG) - 1)
> #define LAST_WORD_MASK(bits) 	~(~0UL << bits % BITS_PER_LONG)
> #define LAST_WORD_MASK(bits) 	(~0UL >> -bits % BITS_PER_LONG)

Incidentally, I had a patch lying around for replacing BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK by
something like the last of these (it is currently using a ?:). But to allow bits to
have signed type it is safer to spell it

#define BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(bits) (~0UL >> ((-(bits)) & (BITS_PER_LONG-1)))

[also adding lots of parentheses so I don't have to worry about precedence].

> I'm not sure which generates the nicest code.  It's 4 instructions
> each way, with the last being 1 byte smaller:

I think one would have to look at effects on real code; when just compiling a
function doing nothing but this gcc has to use specific registers for in
and out. 

>> Also, I think it is best to handle size==0 appropriately, meaning that
>> one cannot dereference addr in any way (and certainly not addr[-1]).
>
> Ah, okay; l I figured that was a safe case to omit.  But your solution is nicer
> than mine overall.
>
> It may be that omitting the mask *is* safe, but it's a lot of wading through
> callers to prove it.

I think generic library code like this should provide both safety
checks, and only if some true performance bottleneck is found can one
start looking at implementing __shortcuts which have further constraints
on the caller.

Rasmus
--
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/