linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] random: get_random_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: <20250315205532.6815f2c5@pumpkin>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:55:32 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, "Jason A.
 Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: get_random_u64_below()

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 14:20:46 -0400
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 01:52:34PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:38:10 -0400
> > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >   
> > > bcachefs needs this, for sampling devices to read from based on squared
> > > device latencies.
> > > 
> > > this uses the same algorithm as get_random_u32_below: since the multiply
> > > uses the top and bottom halves separately, it works out fairly well.  
> > 
> > Adding two separate copies of much the same code is silly.
> > Given what the code is doing, does it ever make any sense to inline it.
> > 
> > Inlining the original get_random_u32_below(ceil) that did
> > 	(random_u32() * ((1ull << 32) / ceil) >> 32
> > (for constant ceil) made sense.
> > While good enough for most purposes it was replaced by the much more
> > expensive function that guarantees that all the output values are
> > equally likely - rather than just evenly distributed.  
> 
> Expensive!? It adds a multiply.

I make it two multiplies and a loop.
Have you looked at what happens on 32bit systems?

> 
> That % gets constant folded, in the inlined case, and in the non-inline
> case it's hit only a small fraction of the, time, for typical ceil.

If the % is only a small fraction on the cost for the non-inline case
(and it is over 100 clocks on many cpu that people still use) then
why inline anything?
A quick look shows divide being 'only moderately slow' on zen3 and coffee lake.

What you might want to do is pass -ceil % ceil through to a real function
(especially if constant).

Oh I guess you haven't actually tested the version you submitted.
Time to play 'spot the silly error'.

	David