linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] LoongArch/percpu: Simplify _percpu_read() and _percpu

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]

Message-ID: <CAFULd4ZqD2L=B5YfKjGR4s0mOM-fABb5+83Z5KfmX0YRaxWw-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:16:28 +0200
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LoongArch/percpu: Simplify _percpu_read() and _percpu_write()

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:09 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 14:02 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > If the input value is less than 0xff, then "& 0xff" is meaningless, if
> > > the input value is more than 0xff, this conversion still cannot give a
> > > correct result for the caller. So I think for all sizes it is enough
> > > to just use "((unsigned long) val)".
> >
> > This part is used to force unsigned extension, otherwise the compiler
> > will use sign-extension of the possibly signed variable.
>
> It's not relevant.  For example when size is 2 __pcpu_op_##size("stx")
> is expanded to stx.h, and stx.h only stores the lower 16 bits of a
> register into MEM[r21 + ptr], the high bits are ignored anyway.
>
> Thus we can just have
>
> +#define _percpu_write(size, _pcp, _val)                                        \
> +do {                                                                   \
> +       if (0) {                                                        \
> +               typeof(_pcp) pto_tmp__;                                 \
> +               pto_tmp__ = (_val);                                     \
> +               (void)pto_tmp__;                                        \
> +       }                                                               \
> +       __asm__ __volatile__(                                           \
> +               __pcpu_op_##size("stx") "%[val], $r21, %[ptr]   \n"     \
> +               :                                                       \
> +               : [val] "r"(_val), [ptr] "r"(&(_pcp))           \
> +               : "memory");                                            \
> +} while (0)

Nice, the less code, the better. If it works for loongson target, then
we don't need this paranoia.

I just played safe and took the approach that x86 took.

Uros.