linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/string.c: Optimize memchr()

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:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:49:58 +0300
From:   Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@...il.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Yu-Jen Chang' <arthurchang09@...il.com>
Cc:     "andy@...nel.org" <andy@...nel.org>,
        "akinobu.mita@...il.com" <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Ching-Chun Huang <jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/string.c: Optimize memchr()

On 7/13/22 12:39, David Laight wrote:
> From: Yu-Jen Chang
>> Sent: 12 July 2022 15:59
> ...
>>> I think you're missing the point. Loads at unaligned addresses may not
>>> be allowed by hardware using conventional load instructions or may be
>>> inefficient. Given that this memchr implementation is used as a fallback
>>> when no hardware-specific version is available, you should be
>>> conservative wrt. hardware capabilities and behavior. You should
>>> probably have a pre-alignment loop.
>>
>> Got it. I add  pre-alignment loop. It aligns the address to 8 or 4bytes.
> 
> That should be predicated on !HAS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> 
> ...
>>         for (; p <= end - 8; p += 8) {
>>             val = *(u64*)p ^ mask;
>>             if ((val + 0xfefefefefefefeffull)
>> & (~val & 0x8080808080808080ull))
>>                 break;
> 
> I would add a couple of comments, like:
> 	// Convert to check for zero byte.
> 	// Standard check for a zero byte in a word.
> (But not the big 4 line explanation you had.
> 
> It is also worth looking at how that code compiles
> on 32bit arch that don't have a carry flag.
> That is everything based on MIPS, including riscv.

It may be worth looking at how glibc does it:

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=string/memchr.c;h=422bcd0cd646ea46711a57fa3cbdb8a3329fc302;hb=refs/heads/release/2.35/master#l46

They do use 32-bit words on 32-bit targets and 64-bit on 64-bit ones. I
think memchr in the kernel should follow this.