linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-mdma: avoid 64-bit division

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: <CA+M3ks4cKxYy15-6ewbMaJOLF0e2NdhwrZUCq-U2s4Y8n212fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:46:00 +0200
From:   Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pierre-Yves MORDRET <pierre-yves.mordret@...com>,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        "M'boumba Cedric Madianga" <cedric.madianga@...il.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: stm32-mdma: avoid 64-bit division

2017-10-11 16:39 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Benjamin Gaignard
> <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org> wrote:
>> 2017-10-11 16:01 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
>>
>>> @@ -398,6 +400,9 @@ static enum dma_slave_buswidth stm32_mdma_get_max_width(u32 buf_len, u32 tlen)
>>>                         break;
>>>         }
>>>
>>> +       if (addr % max_width)
>>> +               max_width = DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE;
>>> +
>>
>> I'm only half-convince by the implicite 32 bits cast done into
>> function prototype.
>> If we keep using dma_addr_t and use do_div() instead of %
>> does compiler can still optimize the code ?
>>
>
> I wouldn't want to add a do_div() here, since it's guaranteed
> not to be needed. Would you prefer an explicit cast here
> and leave the argument as dma_addr_t?
>
> We could also use a bit mask here like
>
>   if (addr & (max_width-1))

That sound better for me since it doesn't limit the code to 32 bits architecture

>
> or we could combined it with the check above:
>
>                 if ((((buf_len | addr) & (max_width - 1)) == 0) &&
>                    (tlen >= max_width))

No it is more simple to read with two checks

Benjamin
>
>        Arnd