linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] efi: Fix gcc error around _

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: <CAMj1kXFyQiYPYB-81POq7agRW1ROt=2j3nN9wcpHGmr4YjmFCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2020 00:03:46 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
Cc:     Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] efi: Fix gcc error around __umoddi3 for 32 bit builds

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 23:56, Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:43 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/26/20 1:45 AM, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > 32bit gcc doesn't support modulo operation on 64 bit data. It results in
> > > a __umoddi3 error while building EFI for 32 bit.
> > >
> > > Use bitwise operations instead of modulo operations to fix the issue.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/alignedmem.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/alignedmem.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/alignedmem.c
> > > index cc89c4d6196f..1de9878ddd3a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/alignedmem.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/alignedmem.c
> > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_allocate_pages_aligned(unsigned long size, unsigned long *addr,
> > >       *addr = ALIGN((unsigned long)alloc_addr, align);
> > >
> > >       if (slack > 0) {
> > > -             int l = (alloc_addr % align) / EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > +             int l = (alloc_addr & (align - 1)) / EFI_PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> > Here you rely on the compiler to silently convert the division by
> > EFI_PAGE_SIZE into a right shift. Wouldn't it be cleaner to use
> > EFI_PAGE_SHIFT to explicitly avoid a dependency on __udivdi3()?
> >
> > slack = (align >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
> > ...
> > int l = (alloc_addr & (align - 1)) >> EFI_PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
>
> Sure. I will update it in the next version. Thanks for the suggestion.

Please don't. Dividing by EFI_PAGE_SIZE is perfectly fine, and is more readable.