linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/math64: handle #DE in mul_u64_u64_div

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: <B22E6B1E-9569-4267-87E0-F442B86A49A8@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 09:53:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/math64: handle #DE in mul_u64_u64_div_u64()

On July 22, 2025 5:09:47 AM PDT, David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 12:50:35 +0200
>Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/21, David Laight wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 15:04:22 +0200
>> > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >  
>> > > Change mul_u64_u64_div_u64() to return ULONG_MAX if the result doesn't
>> > > fit u64, this matches the generic implementation in lib/math/div64.c.  
>> >
>> > Not quite, the generic version is likely to trap on divide by zero.  
>> 
>> I meant that the generic implementation returns -1ul too if the result
>> doesn't fit into u64.
>> 
>> > I think it would be better to always trap (eg BUG_ON(!div)).  
>> 
>> Well, I don't like adding a BUG_ON(), but OK.
>> 
>> > The trouble there is that (an ignored) ~(u64)0 is likely to cause another
>> > arithmetic overflow with even more consequences.
>> >
>> > So I'm not at all sure what it should look like or whether 0 is a better
>> > error return (esp for div == 0).  
>> 
>> I'm not sure either but x86/generic versions should be consistent. Let's
>> discuss this and possibly change both implementations later?
>
>My thought as well.
>Getting both to agree is a start.
>
>My latest thought is to add another parameter for the return value
>when the result overflows or is infinity/NaN.
>So the calling code can get 0, 1, ~0 (or any other 'safe' value) returned.
>A special 'magic' value could be used to mean BUG().
>
>> 
>> > >  static inline u64 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(u64 a, u64 mul, u64 div)
>> > >  {
>> > > +	int ok = 0;
>> > >  	u64 q;
>> > >
>> > > -	asm ("mulq %2; divq %3" : "=a" (q)
>> > > -				: "a" (a), "rm" (mul), "rm" (div)
>> > > -				: "rdx");
>> > > +	asm ("mulq %3; 1: divq %4; movl $1,%1; 2:\n"  
>> >
>> > The "movl $1,%1" is a 5 byte instruction.
>> > Better to use either 'incl' or get the constraints right for 'movb'  
>> 
>> Agreed, thanks,
>> 
>> > > +	if (ok)
>> > > +		return q;
>> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!div);  
>> >
>> > I think you need to WARN for overflow as well as divide by zero.  
>> 
>> The generic implementation doesn't WARN... OK, I won't argue.
>
>I've a set of patches I need to do a new version of.
>I'll add a WARN_ON_ONCE() to the generic version.
>I'll also put a copy of this patch in my set so that the later patches
>will apply after this is applied without too much hastle.
>
>> How about
>> 
>> 	static inline u64 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(u64 a, u64 mul, u64 div)
>> 	{
>> 		char ok = 0;
>> 		u64 q;
>> 
>> 		asm ("mulq %3; 1: divq %4; movb $1,%1; 2:\n"
>> 			_ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
>> 			: "=a" (q), "+r" (ok)
>
>That needs to be "+q" (ok)
>
>> 			: "a" (a), "rm" (mul), "rm" (div)
>> 			: "rdx");
>> 
>> 		if (ok)
>> 			return q;
>> 		BUG_ON(!div);
>> 		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>
>I know there are are a lot of WARN_ON_ONCE(1) out there,
>but maybe WARN_ON_ONCE("muldiv overflow") would be better?
>(The linker will merge the strings).
>
>	David
>
>> 		return ~(u64)0;
>> 	}
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Oleg.
>> 
>

Note that -1 for division by zero (not necessarily for overflow) follows from most natural division algorithms, and so architectures which don't trap on division overflow tend to behave that way.