linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] lib: add bitmap_{from,to}

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:   Mon, 2 May 2022 13:06:56 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lib: add bitmap_{from,to}_arr64

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 08:45:35AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:59:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:51:13PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > Manipulating 64-bit arrays with bitmap functions is potentially dangerous
> > > because on 32-bit BE machines the order of halfwords doesn't match.
> > > Another issue is that compiler may throw a warning about out-of-boundary
> > > access.
> > > 
> > > This patch adds bitmap_{from,to}_arr64 functions in addition to existing
> > > bitmap_{from,to}_arr32.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +	bitmap_copy_clear_tail((unsigned long *) (bitmap),	\
> > > +			(const unsigned long *) (buf), (nbits))
> > 
> > Drop spaces after castings. Besides that it might be placed on a single line.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> OK
>  
> > 
> > > +	bitmap_copy_clear_tail((unsigned long *) (buf),		\
> > > +			(const unsigned long *) (bitmap), (nbits))
> > 
> > Ditto.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +void bitmap_to_arr64(u64 *buf, const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int nbits)
> > > +{
> > > +	const unsigned long *end = bitmap + BITS_TO_LONGS(nbits);
> > > +
> > > +	while (bitmap < end) {
> > > +		*buf = *bitmap++;
> > > +		if (bitmap < end)
> > > +			*buf |= (u64)(*bitmap++) << 32;
> > > +		buf++;
> > > +	}
> > >  
> > > +	/* Clear tail bits in last element of array beyond nbits. */
> > > +	if (nbits % 64)
> > > +		buf[-1] &= GENMASK_ULL(nbits, 0);
> > 
> > Hmm... if nbits is > 0 and < 64, wouldn't be this problematic, since
> > end == bitmap? Or did I miss something?
> 
> BITS_TO_LONGS(0) == 0
> BITS_TO_LONGS(1..32) == 1
> BITS_TO_LONGS(33..64) == 2
> 
> The only potential problem with buf[-1] is nbits == 0, but fortunately
> (0 % 64) == 0, and it doesn't happen.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yury

Are there any other concerns? If no, I'll fix formatting and append it to
bitmap-for-next.

Thanks,
Yury