linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 05:33:48 -0700
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "kernelci . org bot" <bot@...nelci.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@...il.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

On May 10, 2020 4:59:17 AM PDT, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>From: Peter Anvin
>> Sent: 08 May 2020 18:32
>> On 2020-05-08 10:21, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> One last suggestion.  Add the "b" modifier to the mask operand:
>"orb
>> >> %b1, %0".  That forces the compiler to use the 8-bit register name
>> >> instead of trying to deduce the width from the input.
>> >
>> > Ah right:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#x86Operandmodifiers
>> >
>> > Looks like that works for both compilers.  In that case, we can
>likely
>> > drop the `& 0xff`, too.  Let me play with that, then I'll hopefully
>> > send a v3 today.
>> >
>> 
>> Good idea. I requested a while ago that they document these
>modifiers; they
>> chose not to document them all which in some ways is good; it shows
>what they
>> are willing to commit to indefinitely.
>
>I thought the intention here was to explicitly do a byte access.
>If the constant bit number has had a div/mod by 8 done on it then
>the address can be misaligned - so you mustn't do a non-byte sized
>locked access.
>
>OTOH the original base address must be aligned.
>
>Looking at some instruction timing, BTS/BTR aren't too bad if the
>bit number is a constant. But are 6 or 7 clocks slower if it is in %cl.
>Given these are locked RMW bus cycles they'll always be slow!
>
>How about an asm multi-part alternative that uses a byte offset
>and byte constant if the compiler thinks the mask is constant
>or a 4-byte offset and 32bit mask if it doesn't.
>
>The other alternative is to just use BTS/BTS and (maybe) rely on the
>assembler to add in the word offset to the base address.
>
>	David
>
>-
>Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes,
>MK1 1PT, UK
>Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

The intent is to do a byte access. The "multi-part asm" you are talking about is also already there...
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.