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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:11:29 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com> To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org> CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...abs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH] bitmap: Fix optimization of bitmap_set/clear for big-endian machines From: Paul Mackerras [mailto:paulus@...abs.org] > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 07:39:48AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Hang on, don't tell me you found this by inspection. Are you not running the > bitmap testcase, enabled by CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP? Either that should be > producing an error, or there's a missing test case, or your inspection is wrong ... > > I did find it by inspection. I was looking for a version of the > bitmap_* API that does little-endian style bitmaps on all systems, and > the inline bitmap_set() does that in the case where it calls memset, > but not in the case where it calls __bitmap_set. I do believe that you noticed it by inspection, but you shouldn't've had to. I thought we had a comprehensive set of tests for exactly this, which means that either 01.org isn't running the right set of tests on a BE system or the tests are broken. > I'll fire up a big-endian system tomorrow when I get to work to run > the test case. (PPC64 is almost entirely little-endian these days as > far as the IBM POWER systems are concerned.) > > In any case, it's pretty clearly wrong as it is. On a big-endian > 64-bit system, bitmap_set(p, 56, 16) should set bytes 0 and 15 to > 0xff, and there's no way a single memset can do that. So ... this loop should include that case, right? for (start = 0; start < 1024; start += 8) { memset(bmap1, 0x5a, sizeof(bmap1)); memset(bmap2, 0x5a, sizeof(bmap2)); for (nbits = 0; nbits < 1024 - start; nbits += 8) { bitmap_set(bmap1, start, nbits); __bitmap_set(bmap2, start, nbits); if (!bitmap_equal(bmap1, bmap2, 1024)) printk("set not equal %d %d\n", start, nbits); if (!__bitmap_equal(bmap1, bmap2, 1024)) printk("set not __equal %d %d\n", start, nbits);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists