[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUijiLwtYRwc-UHPkuhh+PoMh0scwffewuJ+7wRBR=Jfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:58:29 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The biggest problem - and where the compiler could actually help us -
> tends to be multiplication overflows. We have several (not *many*, but
> certainly more than just a couple) cases where we simply check by
> dividing MAX_INT or something.
>
> See for example kmalloc_array(), which does
>
> if (size != 0 && n > SIZE_MAX / size)
> return NULL;
>
> exactly to avoid the overflow when it does the "n*size" allocation.
>
> So for multiplication, we really *could* use overflow logic. It's not
> horribly common, but it definitely happens.
>
Based in part on an old patch by Sasha, what if we relied on CSE:
if (mul_would_overflow(size, n))
return NULL;
do_something_with(size * n);
I haven't checked, but it would be sad if gcc couldn't optimize this
correctly if we use the builtins.
The downside is that I don't see off the top of my head how this could
be implemented using inline asm if we want a fast fallback when the
builtins aren't available.
--Andy
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists