linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] lib/base64: Replace strchr() for better performance

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: <20250911184935.GE1376@sol>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 11:49:35 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
Cc: Guan-Chun Wu <409411716@....tku.edu.tw>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	axboe@...nel.dk, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
	home7438072@...il.com, idryomov@...il.com, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
	kbusch@...nel.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	sagi@...mberg.me, tytso@....edu, xiubli@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] lib/base64: Replace strchr() for better
 performance

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 02:44:41AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 11:14:18AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 03:32:04PM +0800, Guan-Chun Wu wrote:
> > > From: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > The base64 decoder previously relied on strchr() to locate each
> > > character in the base64 table. In the worst case, this requires
> > > scanning all 64 entries, and even with bitwise tricks or word-sized
> > > comparisons, still needs up to 8 checks.
> > > 
> > > Introduce a small helper function that maps input characters directly
> > > to their position in the base64 table. This reduces the maximum number
> > > of comparisons to 5, improving decoding efficiency while keeping the
> > > logic straightforward.
> > > 
> > > Benchmarks on x86_64 (Intel Core i7-10700 @ 2.90GHz, averaged
> > > over 1000 runs, tested with KUnit):
> > > 
> > > Decode:
> > >  - 64B input: avg ~1530ns -> ~126ns (~12x faster)
> > >  - 1KB input: avg ~27726ns -> ~2003ns (~14x faster)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
> > > Co-developed-by: Guan-Chun Wu <409411716@....tku.edu.tw>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guan-Chun Wu <409411716@....tku.edu.tw>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/base64.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/base64.c b/lib/base64.c
> > > index b736a7a43..9416bded2 100644
> > > --- a/lib/base64.c
> > > +++ b/lib/base64.c
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,21 @@
> > >  static const char base64_table[65] =
> > >  	"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";
> > >  
> > > +static inline const char *find_chr(const char *base64_table, char ch)
> > > +{
> > > +	if ('A' <= ch && ch <= 'Z')
> > > +		return base64_table + ch - 'A';
> > > +	if ('a' <= ch && ch <= 'z')
> > > +		return base64_table + 26 + ch - 'a';
> > > +	if ('0' <= ch && ch <= '9')
> > > +		return base64_table + 26 * 2 + ch - '0';
> > > +	if (ch == base64_table[26 * 2 + 10])
> > > +		return base64_table + 26 * 2 + 10;
> > > +	if (ch == base64_table[26 * 2 + 10 + 1])
> > > +		return base64_table + 26 * 2 + 10 + 1;
> > > +	return NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /**
> > >   * base64_encode() - base64-encode some binary data
> > >   * @src: the binary data to encode
> > > @@ -78,7 +93,7 @@ int base64_decode(const char *src, int srclen, u8 *dst)
> > >  	u8 *bp = dst;
> > >  
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < srclen; i++) {
> > > -		const char *p = strchr(base64_table, src[i]);
> > > +		const char *p = find_chr(base64_table, src[i]);
> > >  
> > >  		if (src[i] == '=') {
> > >  			ac = (ac << 6);
> > 
> > But this makes the contents of base64_table no longer be used, except
> > for entries 62 and 63.  So this patch doesn't make sense.  Either we
> > should actually use base64_table, or we should remove base64_table and
> > do the mapping entirely in code.
> > 
> For base64_decode(), you're right. After this patch it only uses the last
> two entries of base64_table. However, base64_encode() still makes use of
> the entire table.
> 
> I'm a bit unsure why it would be unacceptable if only one of the two
> functions relies on the full base64 table.

Well, don't remove the table then.  But please don't calculate pointers
into it, only to take the offset from the beginning and never actually
dereference them.  You should just generate the offset directly.

- Eric