linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/asm/bitops: ffs: use __builtin

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnH_gYv4qRN9pKY7jNTQK95xNeH1w1KZJJmvCkh8xJLBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 14:35:54 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/asm/bitops: ffs: use __builtin_ffs to evaluate
 constant expressions

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:03 AM Vincent Mailhol
<mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>
> For x86_64, the current ffs() implementation does not produce
> optimized code when called with a constant expression. On the
> contrary, the __builtin_ffs() function of both GCC and clang is able
> to simplify the expression into a single instruction.
>
> * Example *
>
> Let's consider two dummy functions foo() and bar() as below:
>
> | #include <linux/bitops.h>
> | #define CONST 0x01000000
> |
> | unsigned int foo(void)
> | {
> |       return ffs(CONST);
> | }
> |
> | unsigned int bar(void)
> | {
> |       return __builtin_ffs(CONST);
> | }
>
> GCC would produce below assembly code:

Thanks for the patch! LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>

>
> | 0000000000000000 <foo>:
> |    0: ba 00 00 00 01          mov    $0x1000000,%edx
> |    5: b8 ff ff ff ff          mov    $0xffffffff,%eax
> |    a: 0f bc c2                bsf    %edx,%eax
> |    d: 83 c0 01                add    $0x1,%eax
> |   10: c3                      ret

This should be the end of foo.  I...actually don't know what's at the
end here. But I don't think the region from here...

> |   11: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00    data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> |   18: 00 00 00 00
> |   1c: 0f 1f 40 00             nopl   0x0(%rax)

...to here is relevant.


> |
> | 0000000000000020 <bar>:
> |   20: b8 19 00 00 00          mov    $0x19,%eax
> |   25: c3                      ret
>
> And clang would produce:
>
> | 0000000000000000 <foo>:
> |    0: b8 ff ff ff ff          mov    $0xffffffff,%eax
> |    5: 0f bc 05 00 00 00 00    bsf    0x0(%rip),%eax        # c <foo+0xc>
> |    c: 83 c0 01                add    $0x1,%eax
> |    f: c3                      ret

Weird, so I just tried this:
```
$ cat /tmp/x.c
#define CONST 0x01000000

unsigned ffs (int x) {
  int r;
  asm("bsfl %1,%0"
      : "=r" (r)
      : "rm" (x), "0" (-1));
  return r;
}

unsigned int foo(void) {
  return ffs(CONST);
}

unsigned int bar(void) {
  return __builtin_ffs(CONST);
}
$ clang /tmp/x.c -O2 -o /tmp/x.o -c && llvm-objdump -dr /tmp/x.o
--disassemble-symbols=foo
...
0000000000000010 <foo>:
      10: b8 19 00 00 00                movl    $25, %eax
      15: c3                            retq
      16: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 nopw    %cs:(%rax,%rax)
```
but if we make `ffs` `static`, we get:
```
0000000000000000 <foo>:
       0: b8 ff ff ff ff                movl    $4294967295, %eax
 # imm = 0xFFFFFFFF
       5: 0f bc 05 00 00 00 00          bsfl    (%rip), %eax
 # 0xc <foo+0xc>
                0000000000000008:  R_X86_64_PC32        .LCPI0_0-0x4
       c: c3                            retq
       d: 0f 1f 00                      nopl    (%rax)
```
Which is very interesting to me; it looks like constant propagation
actually hurt optimization, we lost that this was a libcall which we
could have optimized.

As in LLVM does:
1. sink CONST into ffs; it's static and has one caller
2. delete x parameter; it's unused
3. now libcall optimization just sees a call to ffs with no params,
that doesn't match the signature of libc.

Your change should fix that since we don't even call a function named
ffs if we have a constant (explicitly, or via optimization). Filed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55394
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers