linux-kernel - Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

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, 16 Mar 2016 17:44:28 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC:	"Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
	qiuxishi <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	dingtinahong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, <chenjie6@...wei.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Suspicious error for CMA stress test

On 2016/3/14 15:18, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:06:16AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016 07:49 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:07:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 03/11/2016 04:00 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How about something like this? Just and idea, probably buggy (off-by-one etc.).
>>>> Should keep away cost from <pageblock_order iterations at the expense of the
>>>> relatively fewer >pageblock_order iterations.
>>> Hmm... I tested this and found that it's code size is a little bit
>>> larger than mine. I'm not sure why this happens exactly but I guess it would be
>>> related to compiler optimization. In this case, I'm in favor of my
>>> implementation because it looks like well abstraction. It adds one
>>> unlikely branch to the merge loop but compiler would optimize it to
>>> check it once.
>> I would be surprised if compiler optimized that to check it once, as
>> order increases with each loop iteration. But maybe it's smart
>> enough to do something like I did by hand? Guess I'll check the
>> disassembly.
> Okay. I used following slightly optimized version and I need to
> add 'max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER, pageblock_order + 1)'
> to yours. Please consider it, too.

Hmm, this one is not work, I still can see the bug is there after applying
this patch, did I miss something?

Thanks
Hanjun