linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations

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]

Message-ID: <20171215192203.GC27160@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:22:03 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     wei.w.wang@...el.com, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        david@...hat.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, aarcange@...hat.com,
        amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        liliang.opensource@...il.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com,
        quan.xu@...yun.com, nilal@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:49:15AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Here's the API I'm looking at right now.  The user need take no lock;
> the locking (spinlock) is handled internally to the implementation.

I looked at the API some more and found some flaws:
 - how does xbit_alloc communicate back which bit it allocated?
 - What if xbit_find_set() is called on a completely empty array with
   a range of 0, ULONG_MAX -- there's no invalid number to return.
 - xbit_clear() can't return an error.  Neither can xbit_zero().
 - Need to add __must_check to various return values to discourage sloppy
   programming

So I modify the proposed API we compete with thusly:

bool xbit_test(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long bit);
int __must_check xbit_set(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long bit, gfp_t);
void xbit_clear(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long bit);
int __must_check xbit_alloc(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long *bit, gfp_t);

int __must_check xbit_fill(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long start,
                        unsigned long nbits, gfp_t);
void xbit_zero(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long start, unsigned long nbits);
int __must_check xbit_alloc_range(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long *bit,
                        unsigned long nbits, gfp_t);

bool xbit_find_clear(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long *start, unsigned long max);
bool xbit_find_set(struct xbitmap *, unsigned long *start, unsigned long max);

(I'm a little sceptical about the API accepting 'max' for the find
functions and 'nbits' in the fill/zero/alloc_range functions, but I think
that matches how people want to use it, and it matches how bitmap.h works)