linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 2/5] m68k/bitops: use __builtin_{clz,ctzl,ffs} to evaluate constant expressions

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: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:16:41 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Vincent MAILHOL' <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, Finn Thain
	<fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, "Nick
 Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Douglas Anderson
	<dianders@...omium.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Petr Mladek
	<pmladek@...e.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Zhaoyang Huang
	<zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>, "Geert
 Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, "linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org"
	<linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 2/5] m68k/bitops: use __builtin_{clz,ctzl,ffs} to
 evaluate constant expressions

From: Vincent MAILHOL
> Sent: 28 January 2024 06:27
> 
> On Sun. 28 Jan. 2024 at 14:39, Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
> >
> > > The compiler is not able to do constant folding on "asm volatile" code.
> > >
> > > Evaluate whether or not the function argument is a constant expression
> > > and if this is the case, return an equivalent builtin expression.
> > >
...
> > If the builtin has the desired behaviour, why do we reimplement it in asm?
> > Shouldn't we abandon one or the other to avoid having to prove (and
> > maintain) their equivalence?
> 
> The asm is meant to produce better results when the argument is not a
> constant expression. Below commit is a good illustration of why we
> want both the asm and the built:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/146034fed6ee
> 
> I say "is meant", because I did not assert whether this is still true.
> Note that there are some cases in which the asm is not better anymore,
> for example, see this thread:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221106095106.849154-2-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr/
> 
> but I did not receive more answers, so I stopped trying to investigate
> the subject.
> 
> If you want, you can check the produced assembly of both the asm and
> the builtin for both clang and gcc, and if the builtin is always
> either better or equivalent, then the asm can be removed. That said, I
> am not spending more effort there after being ghosted once (c.f. above
> thread).

I don't see any example there of why the __builtin_xxx() versions
shouldn't be used all the time.
(The x86-64 asm blocks contain unrelated call instructions and objdump
wasn't passed -d to show what they were.
One even has the 'return thunk pessimisation showing.)

I actually suspect the asm versions predate the builtins.

Does (or can) the outer common header use the __builtin functions
if no asm version exists?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)