netdev - Re: [PATCH 3.12 065/122] lib/checksum.c: fix carry in csum_tcpudp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150219234721.GA22013@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:47:21 +0100
From:	Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...il.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	'Jiri Slaby' <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...ierawaves.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 065/122] lib/checksum.c: fix carry in
 csum_tcpudp_nofold

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:40:23AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Karl Beldan 
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:04:22PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > +static inline u32 from64to32(u64 x)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	/* add up 32-bit and 32-bit for 32+c bit */
> > > > +	x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > > +	/* add up carry.. */
> > > > +	x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > > +	return (u32)x;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, does the compiler optimise away the
> > > second (x & 0xffffffff) ?
> > > The code could just be:
> > > 	x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > 	return x + (x >> 32);
> > >
> >
> > On my side, from what I've seen so far, your version results in better
> > assembly, esp. with clang, but my first version
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1875407:
> >         x += (x << 32) + (x >> 32);
> > 	return (__force __wsum)(x >> 32);
> > resulted in even better assembly, I just verified with gcc/clang,
> > x86_64/ARM and -O1,2,3.
> 
> The latter looks to have a shorter dependency chain as well.
> Although I'd definitely include a comment saying that it is equivalent
> to the two lines in the current patch.
> 
> Does either compiler manage to use a rotate for the two shifts?
> Using '(x << 32) | (x >> 32)' might convince it to do so.
> That would reduce it to three 'real' instructions and a register rename.
> 
gcc and clang rotate for tile (just checked gcc) and x86_64, not for arm
(and IMHO rightly so).
Both '|' and '+' yielded the same asm for those 3 archs.
 
Karl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html