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: <20190826094129.3d28ce64@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:41:29 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>, 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, 26 Aug 2019 18:25:10 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 8/26/19 6:18 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > 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.  
> 
> +1, for co-authoring there's a 'Co-authored-by:' tag which seems to be frequently
> used these days.

Ack, there is a difference between co-author of code, and co-author as
step by step guidance. I've been doing this for 6 years now, and nobody
ever complained :)

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>

Is that enough or should I repost?