linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] bits: introduce fixed-type genmasks

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: <Zddiav19kX8FGKY9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:04:10 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] bits: introduce fixed-type genmasks

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 06:49:59AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:59:06PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:

..

> +#define __GENMASK(t, h, l) \
> +	((~0 - (1 << (l)) + 1) & (~0 >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h))))

What's wrong on using the UL/ULL() macros?

Also it would be really good to avoid bifurcation of the implementations of
__GENMASK() for both cases.

..

> -#define __GENMASK(h, l) \
> -	(((~UL(0)) - (UL(1) << (l)) + 1) & \
> -	 (~UL(0) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h))))

This at bare minimum can be left untouched for asm case, no?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko