linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] x86/vdso: Add VCLOCK

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081849050.3536@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:52:53 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] x86/vdso: Add VCLOCK_HVCLOCK vDSO clock read
 method

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_CLOCK
> > +/* (a * b) >> 64 implementation */
> > +static inline u64 mul64x64_hi(u64 a, u64 b)
> > +{
> > +       u64 a_lo, a_hi, b_lo, b_hi, p1, p2;
> > +
> > +       a_lo = (u32)a;
> > +       a_hi = a >> 32;
> > +       b_lo = (u32)b;
> > +       b_hi = b >> 32;
> > +       p1 = a_lo * b_hi;
> > +       p2 = a_hi * b_lo;
> > +
> > +       return a_hi * b_hi + (p1 >> 32) + (p2 >> 32) +
> > +               ((((a_lo * b_lo) >> 32) + (u32)p1 + (u32)p2) >> 32);
> > +
> > +}
> 
> Unless GCC is waaay more clever than I think, this is hugely
> suboptimal on 64-bit.  x86 can do this in a single instruction, and
> gcc can express it cleanly using __uint128_t.  I wouldn't be terribly
> surprised if the 32-bit generated code was fine, too.

We already have that: mul_u64_u64_shr() which can be replaced by an arch
specific implementation. Nobody bothered to do that for x86 yet, but we
definitely don't want to open code it another time

Thanks,

	tglx