netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] linux/log2.h: Fix 64bit calculations in roundup/down_pow

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: <20191205223044.GA250573@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:30:44 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Cc:     andrew.murray@....com, maz@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Emilio López <emilio@...pez.com.ar>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        Moni Shoua <monis@...lanox.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Mirko Lindner <mlindner@...vell.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Martin Habets <mhabets@...arflare.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        james.quinlan@...adcom.com, mbrugger@...e.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, phil@...pberrypi.org, wahrenst@....net,
        jeremy.linton@....com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....con>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] linux/log2.h: Fix 64bit calculations in
 roundup/down_pow_two()

You got the "n" on "down" in the subject, but still missing "of" ;)

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:47:40PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> Some users need to make sure their rounding function accepts and returns
> 64bit long variables regardless of the architecture. Sadly
> roundup/rounddown_pow_two() takes and returns unsigned longs. It turns
> out ilog2() already handles 32/64bit calculations properly, and being
> the building block to the round functions we can rework them as a
> wrapper around it.

Missing "of" in the function names here.
s/a wrapper/wrappers/

IIUC the point of this is that roundup_pow_of_two() returned
"unsigned long", which can be either 32 or 64 bits (worth pointing
out, I think), and many callers need something that returns
"unsigned long long" (always 64 bits).

It's a nice simplification to remove the "__" variants.  Just as a
casual reader of this commit message, I'd like to know why we had both
the roundup and the __roundup versions in the first place, and why we
no longer need both.

> -#define roundup_pow_of_two(n)			\
> -(						\
> -	__builtin_constant_p(n) ? (		\
> -		(n == 1) ? 1 :			\
> -		(1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1))	\
> -				   ) :		\
> -	__roundup_pow_of_two(n)			\
> - )
> +#define roundup_pow_of_two(n)			  \
> +(						  \
> +	(__builtin_constant_p(n) && ((n) == 1)) ? \
> +	1 : (1ULL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1))        \
> +)

Should the resulting type of this expression always be a ULL, even
when n==1, i.e., should it be this?

  1ULL : (1ULL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1))        \

Or maybe there's no case where that makes a difference?

Bjorn