netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] nfp: bpf: fix latency bug when updating stack index register

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: <CAADnVQ++TEUK=Cb3sCyunFyYFcpXu=NK71P4-1rEWEGCGewU7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:18:04 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        OSS Drivers <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>,
        Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] nfp: bpf: fix latency bug when updating stack index register

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:57 AM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:37 PM Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 7:04 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > From: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
> > >
> > > NFP is using Local Memory to model stack. LM_addr could be used as base of
> > > a 16 32-bit word region of Local Memory. Then, if the stack offset is
> > > beyond the current region, the local index needs to be updated. The update
> > > needs at least three cycles to take effect, therefore the sequence normally
> > > looks like:
> > >
> > >   local_csr_wr[ActLMAddr3, gprB_5]
> > >   nop
> > >   nop
> > >   nop
> > >
> > > If the local index switch happens on a narrow loads, then the instruction
> > > preparing value to zero high 32-bit of the destination register could be
> > > counted as one cycle, the sequence then could be something like:
> > >
> > >   local_csr_wr[ActLMAddr3, gprB_5]
> > >   nop
> > >   nop
> > >   immed[gprB_5, 0]
> > >
> > > However, we have zero extension optimization that zeroing high 32-bit could
> > > be eliminated, therefore above IMMED insn won't be available for which case
> > > the first sequence needs to be generated.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0b4de1ff19bf ("nfp: bpf: eliminate zero extension code-gen")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@...ronome.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > I haven't looked into the code yet. But ^^^ should be
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> >
> > right?
>
> I prefer Review on code I review, ack on code I ack, and sign-off on
> code I co-author.

I believe if you're sending somebody else patch you have to add your SOB
in addition to their 'Author:' and their SOB fields.