linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bitops/32: Convert variable_ffs() and fls() zero-case handling to C

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: <06d04c13-76e8-45fb-a563-e365e1f19362@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 15:38:51 +0100
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
 Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
 Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@...pl>,
 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops/32: Convert variable_ffs() and fls() zero-case
 handling to C

On 29/04/2025 4:13 am, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On April 28, 2025 7:25:17 PM PDT, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On 29/04/2025 3:00 am, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On April 28, 2025 5:12:13 PM PDT, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28/04/2025 10:38 pm, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>>> On April 28, 2025 9:14:45 AM PDT, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 at 00:05, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> And once we remove 486, I think we can do the optimization below to
>>>>>>> just assume the output doesn't get clobbered by BS*L in the zero-case,
>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>> We probably can't, because who knows what "Pentium" CPU's are out there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or even if Pentium really does get it right. I doubt we have any
>>>>>> developers with an original Pentium around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So just leave the "we don't know what the CPU result is for zero"
>>>>>> unless we get some kind of official confirmation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          Linus
>>>>> If anyone knows for sure, it is probably Christian Ludloff. However, there was a *huge* tightening of the formal ISA when the i686 was introduced (family=6) and I really believe this was part of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also really don't trust that family=5 really means conforms to undocumented P5 behavior, e.g. for Quark.
>>>> https://www.sandpile.org/x86/flags.htm
>>>>
>>>> That's a lot of "can't even characterise the result" in the P5.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at P4 column, that is clearly what the latest SDM has
>>>> retroactively declared to be architectural.
>>>>
>>>> ~Andrew
>>> Yes, but it wasn't about flags here. 
>>>
>>> Now, question: can we just use __builtin_*() for these? I think gcc should always generate inline code for these on x86.
>> Yes it does generate inline code.  https://godbolt.org/z/M45oo5rqT
>>
>> GCC does it branchlessly, but cannot optimise based on context.
>>
>> Clang can optimise based on context, except the 0 case it seems.
>>
>> Moving to -march=i686 causes both GCC and Clang to switch to CMOV and
>> create branchless code, but is still GCC still can't optimise out the
>> CMOV based on context.
>>
>> ~Andrew
> Maybe a gcc bug report would be better than trying to hack around this in the kernel?

I tried that.  (The thread started as a question around
__builtin_constant_p() but did grow to cover __builtin_ffs().)

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-March/243465.html

~Andrew