linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/17] bitops: Add generic parity calculation for u64

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: <20250227215741.1c2e382f@pumpkin>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:57:41 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
 mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 x86@...nel.org, jk@...abs.org, joel@....id.au, eajames@...ux.ibm.com,
 andrzej.hajda@...el.com, neil.armstrong@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org,
 maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de,
 airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
 mchehab@...nel.org, awalls@...metrocast.net, hverkuil@...all.nl,
 miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
 louis.peens@...igine.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
 johannes@...solutions.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
 jirislaby@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
 alistair@...ple.id.au, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
 Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
 jernej.skrabec@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
 brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
 Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] bitops: Add generic parity calculation for u64

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:05:29 -0500
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:29:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:27:03 -0500
> > Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> > ....  
> > > +#define parity(val)					\
> > > +({							\
> > > +	u64 __v = (val);				\
> > > +	int __ret;					\
> > > +	switch (BITS_PER_TYPE(val)) {			\
> > > +	case 64:					\
> > > +		__v ^= __v >> 32;			\
> > > +		fallthrough;				\
> > > +	case 32:					\
> > > +		__v ^= __v >> 16;			\
> > > +		fallthrough;				\
> > > +	case 16:					\
> > > +		__v ^= __v >> 8;			\
> > > +		fallthrough;				\
> > > +	case 8:						\
> > > +		__v ^= __v >> 4;			\
> > > +		__ret =  (0x6996 >> (__v & 0xf)) & 1;	\
> > > +		break;					\
> > > +	default:					\
> > > +		BUILD_BUG();				\
> > > +	}						\
> > > +	__ret;						\
> > > +})
> > > +  
> > 
> > You really don't want to do that!
> > gcc makes a right hash of it for x86 (32bit).
> > See https://www.godbolt.org/z/jG8dv3cvs  
> 
> GCC fails to even understand this. Of course, the __v should be an
> __auto_type. But that way GCC fails to understand that case 64 is
> a dead code for all smaller type and throws a false-positive 
> Wshift-count-overflow. This is a known issue, unfixed for 25 years!

Just do __v ^= __v >> 16 >> 16

> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
>  
> > You do better using a __v32 after the 64bit xor.  
> 
> It should be an __auto_type. I already mentioned. So because of that,
> we can either do something like this:
> 
>   #define parity(val)					\
>   ({							\
>   #ifdef CLANG                                          \
>   	__auto_type __v = (val);			\
>   #else /* GCC; because of this and that */             \
>   	u64 __v = (val);			        \
>   #endif                                                \
>   	int __ret;					\
> 
> Or simply disable Wshift-count-overflow for GCC.

For 64bit values on 32bit it is probably better to do:
int p32(unsigned long long x)
{
    unsigned int lo = x;
    lo ^= x >> 32;
    lo ^= lo >> 16;
    lo ^= lo >> 8;
    lo ^= lo >> 4;
    return (0x6996 >> (lo & 0xf)) & 1;
}
That stops the compiler doing 64bit shifts (ok on x86, but probably not elsewhere).
It is likely to be reasonably optimal for most 64bit cpu as well.
(For x86-64 it probably removes a load of REX prefix.)
(It adds an extra instruction to arm because if its barrel shifter.)


> 
> > Even the 64bit version is probably sub-optimal (both gcc and clang).
> > The whole lot ends up being a bit single register dependency chain.
> > You want to do:  
> 
> No, I don't. I want to have a sane compiler that does it for me.
> 
> > 	mov %eax, %edx
> > 	shrl $n, %eax
> > 	xor %edx, %eax
> > so that the 'mov' and 'shrl' can happen in the same clock
> > (without relying on the register-register move being optimised out).
> > 
> > I dropped in the arm64 for an example of where the magic shift of 6996
> > just adds an extra instruction.  
> 
> It's still unclear to me that this parity thing is used in hot paths.
> If that holds, it's unclear that your hand-made version is better than
> what's generated by GCC.

I wasn't seriously considering doing that optimisation.
Perhaps just hoping is might make a compiler person think :-)

	David

> 
> Do you have any perf test?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yury