netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: solve a NAPI race

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: <CAKgT0Ud7dPwyj4Ze4HRJOXTpywBF8VZrELQAay-Sxsv+7+Pozw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:14:05 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] net: solve a NAPI race

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:41 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck
>> Sent: 28 February 2017 17:20
> ...
>> You might want to consider just using a combination AND, divide,
>> multiply, and OR to avoid having to have any conditional branches
>> being added due to this code path.  Basically the logic would look
>> like:
>>     new = val | NAPIF_STATE_SCHED;
>>     new |= (val & NAPIF_STATE_SCHED) / NAPIF_STATE_SCHED * NAPIF_STATE_MISSED;
>>
>> In assembler that all ends up getting translated out to AND, SHL, OR.
>> You avoid the branching, or MOV/OR/TEST/CMOV type code you would end
>> up with otherwise.
>
> It is a shame gcc doesn't contain that optimisation.
> It also doesn't even make a good job of (a & b)/b * c since it
> always does a shr and a sal (gcc 4.7.3 and 5.4).

What build flags are you using?  With -Os or -O2 I have seen it
convert the /b * c into a single shift.

> Worthy of a #define or static inline.
> Something like:
> #define BIT_IF(v, a, b) ((b & (b-1) ? (v & a)/a * b : a > b ? (v & a) / (a/b) : (v & a) * (b/a))
>
>         David

Feel free to put together a patch.  I use this kind of thing in the
Intel drivers in multiple spots to shift stuff from TX_FLAGS into
descriptor flags.

- Alex