linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lib/memweight.c: optimize by inlining bitmap

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: <ad15bc93-0283-2518-8185-7683614d9965@ispras.ru>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:30:07 +0300
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@...ras.ru>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, Erdem Tumurov <erdemus@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Shelekhov <vshel@....nsk.su>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/memweight.c: optimize by inlining bitmap_weight()



On 22.08.2019 04:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:42:00 +0300 Denis Efremov <efremov@...ras.ru> wrote:
> 
>> This patch inlines bitmap_weight() call.
> 
> It is better to say the patch "open codes" the bitmap_weight() call.
> 
>> Thus, removing the BUG_ON,
> 
> Why is that OK to do?

BUG_ON was necessary here to check that bitmap_weight will return a correct value,
i.e. the computed weight will fit the int type: 
static __always_inline int bitmap_weight(const unsigned long *src, unsigned int nbits);

BUG_ON was added in the memweight v2
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20120523092113.GG10452@quack.suse.cz/
Jan Kara wrote:
>> +
>> +	for (longs = bytes / sizeof(long); longs > 0; ) {
>> +		size_t bits = min_t(size_t, INT_MAX & ~(BITS_PER_LONG - 1),
> +					longs * BITS_PER_LONG);
>  I find it highly unlikely that someone would have such a large bitmap
> (256 MB or more on 32-bit). Also the condition as you wrote it can just
> overflow so it won't have the desired effect. Just do
>	BUG_ON(longs >= ULONG_MAX / BITS_PER_LONG);
> and remove the loop completely. If someone comes with such a huge bitmap,
> the code can be modified easily (after really closely inspecting whether
> such a huge bitmap is really well justified).
>> +
>> +		w += bitmap_weight(bitmap.ptr, bits);
>> +		bytes -= bits / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> +		bitmap.address += bits / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>> +		longs -= bits / BITS_PER_LONG;

Akinobu Mita wrote:
> The bits argument of bitmap_weight() is int type. So this should be
>
>        BUG_ON(longs >= INT_MAX / BITS_PER_LONG);

We don't need this check, since we removed the bitmap_weight call and
control the computation directly with size_t everywhere.

We could add BUG_ON(bytes >= SIZE_MAX / BITS_PER_BYTE);
at the very beginning of the function to check that the array is not
very big (>2000PiB), but it seems excessive.

> 
> I expect all the code size improvements are from doing this?

Yes, but I thought it's good to show that the total size is not
increasing because of the manual "inlining".

> 
>> and 'longs to bits -> bits to longs' conversion by directly calling
>> hweight_long().
>>
>> ./scripts/bloat-o-meter lib/memweight.o.old lib/memweight.o.new
>> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-10 (-10)
>> Function                                     old     new   delta
>> memweight                                    162     152     -10
>>
> 

Regards,
Denis