netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] bitops: add non-atomic bitops for pointers

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: <87bl7won1v.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 13:09:00 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] bitops: add non-atomic bitops for pointers

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 04:03:06AM IST, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:22:51AM IST, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> >> Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > cpumap needs to set, clear, and test the lowest bit in skb pointer in
>> >> > various places. To make these checks less noisy, add pointer friendly
>> >> > bitop macros that also do some typechecking to sanitize the argument.
>> >> >
>> >> > These wrap the non-atomic bitops __set_bit, __clear_bit, and test_bit
>> >> > but for pointer arguments. Pointer's address has to be passed in and it
>> >> > is treated as an unsigned long *, since width and representation of
>> >> > pointer and unsigned long match on targets Linux supports. They are
>> >> > prefixed with double underscore to indicate lack of atomicity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  include/linux/bitops.h    | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >  include/linux/typecheck.h | 10 ++++++++++
>> >> >  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > index 26bf15e6cd35..a9e336b9fa4d 100644
>> >> > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> >> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>> >> >
>> >> >  #include <asm/types.h>
>> >> >  #include <linux/bits.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/typecheck.h>
>> >> >
>> >> >  #include <uapi/linux/kernel.h>
>> >> >
>> >> > @@ -253,6 +254,24 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr,
>> >> >  		__clear_bit(nr, addr);
>> >> >  }
>> >> >
>> >> > +#define __ptr_set_bit(nr, addr)                         \
>> >> > +	({                                              \
>> >> > +		typecheck_pointer(*(addr));             \
>> >> > +		__set_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> >> > +	})
>> >> > +
>> >> > +#define __ptr_clear_bit(nr, addr)                         \
>> >> > +	({                                                \
>> >> > +		typecheck_pointer(*(addr));               \
>> >> > +		__clear_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> >> > +	})
>> >> > +
>> >> > +#define __ptr_test_bit(nr, addr)                       \
>> >> > +	({                                             \
>> >> > +		typecheck_pointer(*(addr));            \
>> >> > +		test_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> >> > +	})
>> >> > +
>> >>
>> >> Before these were functions that returned the modified values, now they
>> >> are macros that modify in-place. Why the change? :)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Given that we're exporting this to all kernel users now, it felt more
>> > appropriate to follow the existing convention/argument order for the
>> > functions/ops they are wrapping.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about the order of the arguments; swapping those is
>> fine. But before, you had:
>>
>> static void *__ptr_set_bit(void *ptr, int bit)
>>
>> with usage (function return is the modified value):
>> ret = ptr_ring_produce(rcpu->queue, __ptr_set_bit(skb, 0));
>>
>> now you have:
>> #define __ptr_set_bit(nr, addr)
>>
>> with usage (modifies argument in-place):
>> __ptr_set_bit(0, &skb);
>> ret = ptr_ring_produce(rcpu->queue, skb);
>>
>> why change from function to macro?
>>
>
> Earlier it just took the pointer value and returned one with the bit set. I
> changed it to work similar to __set_bit.

Hmm, okay, fair enough I suppose there's something to be said for
consistency, even though I personally prefer the function style. Let's
keep it as macros, then :)

-Toke