| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <57C4575A.9090008@iogearbox.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:40:10 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
dinan.gunawardena@...ronome.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 01/16] add basic register-field manipulation macros
On 08/29/2016 05:07 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:34:25 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 08/26/2016 08:06 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Common approach to accessing register fields is to define
>>> structures or sets of macros containing mask and shift pair.
>>> Operations on the register are then performed as follows:
>>>
>>> field = (reg >> shift) & mask;
>>>
>>> reg &= ~(mask << shift);
>>> reg |= (field & mask) << shift;
>>>
>>> Defining shift and mask separately is tedious. Ivo van Doorn
>>> came up with an idea of computing them at compilation time
>>> based on a single shifted mask (later refined by Felix) which
>>> can be used like this:
>>>
>>> #define REG_FIELD 0x000ff000
>>>
>>> field = FIELD_GET(REG_FIELD, reg);
>>>
>>> reg &= ~REG_FIELD;
>>> reg |= FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD, field);
>>>
>>> FIELD_{GET,PREP} macros take care of finding out what the
>>> appropriate shift is based on compilation time ffs operation.
>>>
>>> GENMASK can be used to define registers (which is usually
>>> less error-prone and easier to match with datasheets).
>>>
>>> This approach is the most convenient I've seen so to limit code
>>> multiplication let's move the macros to a global header file.
>>> Attempts to use static inlines instead of macros failed due
>>> to false positive triggering of BUILD_BUG_ON()s, especially with
>>> GCC < 6.0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> [...]
>>> + * Bitfield access macros
>>> + *
>>> + * FIELD_{GET,PREP} macros take as first parameter shifted mask
>>> + * from which they extract the base mask and shift amount.
>>> + * Mask must be a compilation time constant.
>>> + *
>>> + * Example:
>>> + *
>>> + * #define REG_FIELD_A GENMASK(6, 0)
>>> + * #define REG_FIELD_B BIT(7)
>>> + * #define REG_FIELD_C GENMASK(15, 8)
>>> + * #define REG_FIELD_D GENMASK(31, 16)
>>> + *
>>> + * Get:
>>> + * a = FIELD_GET(REG_FIELD_A, reg);
>>> + * b = FIELD_GET(REG_FIELD_B, reg);
>>> + *
>>> + * Set:
>>> + * reg = FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_A, 1) |
>>> + * FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_B, 0) |
>>> + * FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_C, c) |
>>> + * FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_D, 0x40);
>>> + *
>>> + * Modify:
>>> + * reg &= ~REG_FIELD_C;
>>> + * reg |= FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_C, c);
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#define _bf_shf(x) (__builtin_ffsll(x) - 1)
>>> +
>>> +#define _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
>>
>> Nit: if possible, please always use "__" instead of "_" as prefix, which is
>> more common coding style in the kernel.
>
> I went with single underscore, because my understanding was:
> - no underscore - safe, "user-facing" API;
> - two underscores - internal, make sure you know how to use it;
> - single underscore - library internals, shouldn't be touched.
That convention would be new to me, at least I haven't seen it much (see
also recent comment on the act_tunnel set). Still think two underscores
is generally preferred (unless this is somewhere documented otherwise).
> I don't expect anyone to invoke those macros, the underscore is
> there to avoid collisions.
>
>>> + ({ \
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \
>>> + _pfx "mask is not constant"); \
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!(_mask), _pfx "mask is zero"); \
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
>>> + ~((_mask) >> _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : 0, \
>>> + _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) > (typeof(_reg))~0ull, \
>>> + _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>>> + __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
>>> + (1ULL << _bf_shf(_mask))); \
>>> + })
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * FIELD_PREP() - prepare a bitfield element
>>> + * @_mask: shifted mask defining the field's length and position
>>> + * @_val: value to put in the field
>>> + *
>>> + * FIELD_PREP() masks and shifts up the value. The result should
>>> + * be combined with other fields of the bitfield using logical OR.
>>> + */
>>> +#define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) \
>>> + ({ \
>>> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
>>> + ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
>>> + })
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * FIELD_GET() - extract a bitfield element
>>> + * @_mask: shifted mask defining the field's length and position
>>> + * @_reg: 32bit value of entire bitfield
>>> + *
>>> + * FIELD_GET() extracts the field specified by @_mask from the
>>> + * bitfield passed in as @_reg by masking and shifting it down.
>>> + */
>>> +#define FIELD_GET(_mask, _reg) \
>>> + ({ \
>>> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, 0U, "FIELD_GET: "); \
>>> + (typeof(_mask))(((_reg) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
>>> + })
>>
>> No strong opinion, but FIELD_PREP() sounds a bit weird. Maybe rather a
>> FIELD_GEN() (aka "generate") and FIELD_GET() pair?
>
> FWIW PREP was suggested by Linus:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/17/384
Hmm, ok, fair enough.
>>> +#endif
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bug.h b/include/linux/bug.h
>>> index e51b0709e78d..292d6a10b0c2 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/bug.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/bug.h
>>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ enum bug_trap_type {
>>> struct pt_regs;
>>>
>>> #ifdef __CHECKER__
>>> +#define __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) (0)
>>> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) (0)
>>> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (0)
>>> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void*)0)
>>> @@ -24,6 +25,8 @@ struct pt_regs;
>>> #else /* __CHECKER__ */
>>>
>>> /* Force a compilation error if a constant expression is not a power of 2 */
>>> +#define __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) \
>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(((n) & ((n) - 1)) != 0)
>>
>> Is there a reason BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(n) cannot be reused?
>>
>> Because the (n) == 0 check would trigger (although it shouldn't ...)?
>
> It would, I'm doing:
> mask + lowest bit of mask
> which will result in:
> highest bit of mask << 1
> which in turn will overflow for masks with highest bit set.
Ahh, right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists