linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 1/3] lib: Add strongly typed 64bit int

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:37:21 +0100
From:   Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Niklas Soderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/3] lib: Add strongly typed 64bit int_sqrt

On 10 January 2018 at 09:33, Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com> wrote:
> On 10 January 2018 at 09:15, Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com> wrote:
>> On 9 January 2018 at 20:23, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 16:18 +0100, Crt Mori wrote:
>>>> There is no option to perform 64bit integer sqrt on 32bit platform.
>>>> Added stronger typed int_sqrt64 enables the 64bit calculations to
>>>> be performed on 32bit platforms. Using same algorithm as int_sqrt()
>>>> with strong typing provides enough precision also on 32bit platforms,
>>>> but it sacrifices some performance.
>>> []
>>>> diff --git a/lib/int_sqrt.c b/lib/int_sqrt.c
>>> []
>>>> @@ -36,3 +37,34 @@ unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
>>>>       return y;
>>>>  }
>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);
>>>> +
>>>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG < 64
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * int_sqrt64 - strongly typed int_sqrt function when minimum 64 bit input
>>>> + * is expected.
>>>> + * @x: 64bit integer of which to calculate the sqrt
>>>> + */
>>>> +u32 int_sqrt64(u64 x)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     u64 b, m;
>>>> +     u32 y = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (x <= 1)
>>>> +             return x;
>>>
>>> I think this should instead be:
>>>
>>>         if (x <= INT_MAX)
>>>                 return int_sqrt((int)x);
>>>
>>> to reduce the loop cost below when the
>>> value is small enough.
>>>
>>
>> In existing int_sqrt its only 1 and I assume that is more to protect
>> from loop execution with 0 or 1. Since there is no difference (except
>> fls64) with int_sqrt I assume there is no need to call it to avoid
>> loop?
>>
>
> Nevermind, I see what you mean (should have thought longer before I
> written). The cost of below loop is because of 64bit calculation is
> not native on 32bit and we could just use 32bit calculation in that
> loop. Will send v13 with a fix for this.
>
Shouldn't I rather make it

         if (x <= ULONG_MAX)
                 return int_sqrt((unsigned long) x);


>>>> +
>>>> +     m = 1ULL << (fls64(x) & ~1ULL);
>>>> +     while (m != 0) {
>>>> +             b = y + m;
>>>> +             y >>= 1;
>>>> +
>>>> +             if (x >= b) {
>>>> +                     x -= b;
>>>> +                     y += m;
>>>> +             }
>>>> +             m >>= 2;
>>>> +     }
>>>> +
>>>> +     return y;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt64);
>>>> +#endif