linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib: fix 842 build on 32-bit architectures

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: <20150514100330.GV2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 11:03:30 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: fix 842 build on 32-bit architectures

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:56:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Building the 842 code on 32-bit ARM currently results in this link
> error:
> 
> ERROR: "__aeabi_uldivmod" [lib/842/842_decompress.ko] undefined!
> 
> The reason is that the __do_index function performs a 64-bit
> division by a power-of-two number, but it has no insight into
> the function arguments.
> 
> By marking that function inline, the fsize argument is always
> known at the time that do_index is called, and the compiler is
> able to replace the extremely expensive 64-bit division with
> a cheap constant shift operation.
> 
> Aside from fixing that link error, this approach should also improve
> both code size and performance on 32-bit architectures significantly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> Found while building arm32 allmodconfig with gcc-5.0
> 
> diff --git a/lib/842/842_decompress.c b/lib/842/842_decompress.c
> index 6b2b45aecde3..285bf6b6959c 100644
> --- a/lib/842/842_decompress.c
> +++ b/lib/842/842_decompress.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int do_data(struct sw842_param *p, u8 n)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int __do_index(struct sw842_param *p, u8 size, u8 bits, u64 fsize)
> +static inline int __do_index(struct sw842_param *p, u8 size, u8 bits, u64 fsize)

This had better get a comment to say why this is done, to stop the
"don't do static inline in a .c" brigade reverting this change.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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/