linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nand_base: optimize checking of erased buffers

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: <421c46b9-288f-42e9-5b2f-d93af1e8a418@free.fr>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2017 13:27:43 +0200
From:   Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mark.marshall@...cronenergy.com, b44839@...escale.com,
        prabhakar@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nand_base: optimize checking of erased buffers

On 21/04/2017 12:51, Pavel Machek wrote:

> If we see ~0UL in flash, there's no need for hweight, and no need to
> check number of bitflips. So this should be net win.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index b0524f8..96c27ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -1357,7 +1357,10 @@ static int nand_check_erased_buf(void *buf, int len, int bitflips_threshold)
>  
>  	for (; len >= sizeof(long);
>  	     len -= sizeof(long), bitmap += sizeof(long)) {
> -		weight = hweight_long(*((unsigned long *)bitmap));

I hadn't noticed this earlier. There is, obviously, an implicit
requirement that 'buf' must be 4-byte aligned on 32-bit platforms,
and 8-byte aligned on 64-bit platforms.

This is not true for my platform, as the ecc pointer is
chip->oob_poi + 10

I suppose it's not a problem if the platform can handle
unaligned loads, otherwise it spells trouble.


> +		unsigned long d = *((unsigned long *)bitmap);
> +		if (d == ~0UL)
> +			continue;
> +		weight = hweight_long(d);
>  		bitflips += BITS_PER_LONG - weight;
>  		if (unlikely(bitflips > bitflips_threshold))
>  			return -EBADMSG;
> 

The optimization makes sense in itself, but given that it's on an
error path (?) I'm not sure it will bring any tangible benefits?

Regards.