| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8934d9ec-e969-4662-b220-9fb1cbeca7b2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:48:08 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@...aklogic.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: gts-helpers: Round gains and scales
On 11/26/23 19:26, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 11:50:46 +0200
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> The GTS helpers do flooring of scale when calculating available scales.
>> This results available-scales to be reported smaller than they should
>> when the division in scale computation resulted remainder greater than
>> half of the divider. (decimal part of result > 0.5)
>>
>> Furthermore, when gains are computed based on scale, the gain resulting
>> from the scale computation is also floored. As a consequence the
>> floored scales reported by available scales may not match the gains that
>> can be set.
>>
>> The related discussion can be found from:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/84d7c283-e8e5-4c98-835c-fe3f6ff94f4b@gmail.com/
>>
>> Do rounding when computing scales and gains.
>>
>> Fixes: 38416c28e168 ("iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers")
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
>
> Hi Matti,
>
> A few questions inline about the maths.
I appreciate the questions :) Thanks!
>
>>
>> ---
>> Subjahit, is there any chance you test this patch with your driver? Can
>> you drop the:
>> if (val2 % 10)
>> val2 += 1;
>> from scale setting and do you see written and read scales matching?
>>
>> I did run a few Kunit tests on this change - but I'm still a bit jumpy
>> on it... Reviewing/testing is highly appreciated!
>>
>> Just in case someone is interested in seeing the Kunit tests, they're
>> somewhat unpolished & crude and can emit noisy debug prints - but can
>> anyways be found from:
>> https://github.com/M-Vaittinen/linux/commits/iio-gts-helpers-test-v6.6
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
>> index 7653261d2dc2..7dc144ac10c8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-gts-helper.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,32 @@
>> #include <linux/iio/iio-gts-helper.h>
>> #include <linux/iio/types.h>
>>
>> +static int iio_gts_get_gain_32(u64 full, unsigned int scale)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int full32 = (unsigned int) full;
>> + unsigned int rem;
>> + int result;
>> +
>> + if (full == (u64)full32) {
>> + unsigned int rem;
>> +
>> + result = full32 / scale;
>> + rem = full32 - scale * result;
>> + if (rem >= scale / 2)
>> + result++;
>> +
>> + return result;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rem = do_div(full, scale);
>
> As below, can we just add scale/2 to full in the do_div?
The rationale for doing is it in this way is to prevent (theoretical?)
overflow when adding scale/2 to full. Maybe this warrants adding a comment?
>
>> + if ((u64)rem >= scale / 2)
>> + result = full + 1;
>> + else
>> + result = full;
>> +
>> + return result;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * iio_gts_get_gain - Convert scale to total gain
>> *
>> @@ -28,30 +54,42 @@
>> * scale is 64 100 000 000.
>> * @scale: Linearized scale to compute the gain for.
>> *
>> - * Return: (floored) gain corresponding to the scale. -EINVAL if scale
>> + * Return: (rounded) gain corresponding to the scale. -EINVAL if scale
>> * is invalid.
>> */
>> static int iio_gts_get_gain(const u64 max, const u64 scale)
>> {
>> - u64 full = max;
>> + u64 full = max, half_div;
>> + unsigned int scale32 = (unsigned int) scale;
>> int tmp = 1;
>>
>> - if (scale > full || !scale)
>> + if (scale / 2 > full || !scale)
>
> Seems odd. Why are we checking scale / 2 here?
I am pretty sure I have been thinking of rounding 0.5 to 1.
>
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * The loop-based implementation below will potentially run _long_
>> + * if we have a small scale and large 'max' - which may be needed when
>> + * GTS is used for channels returning specific units. Luckily we can
>> + * avoid the loop when scale is small and fits in 32 bits.
>> + */
>> + if ((u64)scale32 == scale)
>> + return iio_gts_get_gain_32(full, scale32);
>> +
>> if (U64_MAX - full < scale) {
>> /* Risk of overflow */
>> - if (full - scale < scale)
>> + if (full - scale / 2 < scale)
>> return 1;
>>
>> full -= scale;
>> tmp++;
>> }
>>
>> - while (full > scale * (u64)tmp)
>> + half_div = scale >> 2;
>
> Why divide by 4? Looks like classic issue with using shifts for division
> causing confusion.
Yes. Looks like a brainfart to me. I need to fire-up my tests and revise
this (and the check you asked about above). It seems to take a while
from me to wrap my head around this again...
Thanks for pointing this out!
>
>> +
>> + while (full + half_div >= scale * (u64)tmp)
>> tmp++;
>>
>> - return tmp;
>> + return tmp - 1;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -133,6 +171,7 @@ static int iio_gts_linearize(int scale_whole, int scale_nano,
>> * Convert the total gain value to scale. NOTE: This does not separate gain
>> * generated by HW-gain or integration time. It is up to caller to decide what
>> * part of the total gain is due to integration time and what due to HW-gain.
>> + * Computed gain is rounded to nearest integer.
>> *
>> * Return: 0 on success. Negative errno on failure.
>> */
>> @@ -140,10 +179,13 @@ int iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale(struct iio_gts *gts, int total_gain,
>> int *scale_int, int *scale_nano)
>> {
>> u64 tmp;
>> + int rem;
>>
>> tmp = gts->max_scale;
>>
>> - do_div(tmp, total_gain);
>> + rem = do_div(tmp, total_gain);
>
> can we do usual trick of
> do_div(tmp + total_gain/2, total_gain)
> to get the same rounding effect?
Only if we don't care about the case where tmp + total_gain/2 overflows.
>
>> + if (total_gain > 1 && rem >= total_gain / 2)
>> + tmp += 1ULL;
>>
>> return iio_gts_delinearize(tmp, NANO, scale_int, scale_nano);
>> }
>> @@ -192,7 +234,7 @@ static int gain_to_scaletables(struct iio_gts *gts, int **gains, int **scales)
>> sort(gains[i], gts->num_hwgain, sizeof(int), iio_gts_gain_cmp,
>> NULL);
>>
>> - /* Convert gains to scales */
>> + /* Convert gains to scales. */
>
> Grumble - unrelated change.
Yes. I'll drop this.
>
>> for (j = 0; j < gts->num_hwgain; j++) {
>> ret = iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale(gts, gains[i][j],
>> &scales[i][2 * j],
>>
>> base-commit: ffc253263a1375a65fa6c9f62a893e9767fbebfa
All in all, I am still not 100% sure if rounding is the right ambition.
Do we cause hidden accuracy issues by doing the rounding under the hood?
I feel I need bigger brains :)
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists