netdev - Re: [PATCH 03/17] x86: Replace open-coded parity calculation with parity8()

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: <E07B61E5-324E-4CDC-AE68-A63CDF4325F4@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 16:26:43 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
CC: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, jk@...abs.org,
        joel@....id.au, eajames@...ux.ibm.com, andrzej.hajda@...el.com,
        neil.armstrong@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org,
        maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org,
        tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch,
        dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, mchehab@...nel.org, awalls@...metrocast.net,
        hverkuil@...all.nl, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
        vigneshr@...com, louis.peens@...igine.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
        johannes@...solutions.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, yury.norov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, alistair@...ple.id.au, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
        jernej.skrabec@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev,
        brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
        Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] x86: Replace open-coded parity calculation with parity8()

On February 25, 2025 2:46:23 PM PST, David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 13:55:28 -0800
>"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/25 07:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 23. 02. 25 17:42, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:  
>> >> Refactor parity calculations to use the standard parity8() helper. This
>> >> change eliminates redundant implementations and improves code
>> >> efficiency.  
>...
>> Of course, on x86, parity8() and parity16() can be implemented very simply:
>> 
>> (Also, the parity functions really ought to return bool, and be flagged 
>> __attribute_const__.)
>> 
>> static inline __attribute_const__ bool _arch_parity8(u8 val)
>> {
>> 	bool parity;
>> 	asm("and %0,%0" : "=@...p" (parity) : "q" (val));
>> 	return parity;
>> }
>> 
>> static inline __attribute_const__ bool _arch_parity16(u16 val)
>> {
>> 	bool parity;
>> 	asm("xor %h0,%b0" : "=@...p" (parity), "+Q" (val));
>> 	return parity;
>> }
>
>The same (with fixes) can be done for parity64() on 32bit.
>
>> 
>> In the generic algorithm, you probably should implement parity16() in 
>> terms of parity8(), parity32() in terms of parity16() and so on:
>> 
>> static inline __attribute_const__ bool parity16(u16 val)
>> {
>> #ifdef ARCH_HAS_PARITY16
>> 	if (!__builtin_const_p(val))
>> 		return _arch_parity16(val);
>> #endif
>> 	return parity8(val ^ (val >> 8));
>> }
>> 
>> This picks up the architectural versions when available.
>
>Not the best way to do that.
>Make the name in the #ifdef the same as the function and define
>a default one if the architecture doesn't define one.
>So:
>
>static inline parity16(u16 val)
>{
>	return __builtin_const_p(val) ? _parity_const(val) : _parity16(val);
>}
>
>#ifndef _parity16
>static inline _parity16(u15 val)
>{
>	return _parity8(val ^ (val >> 8));
>}
>#endif
>
>You only need one _parity_const().
>
>> 
>> Furthermore, if a popcnt instruction is known to exist, then the parity 
>> is simply popcnt(x) & 1.
>
>Beware that some popcnt instructions are slow.
>
>	David
>
>> 
>> 	-hpa
>> 
>> 
>

Seems more verbose than just #ifdef _arch_parity8 et al since the const and generic code cases are the same (which they aren't always.)

But that part is a good idea, especially since on at least *some* architectures like x86 doing: 

#define _arch_parity8(x) __builtin_parity(x)

... etc is entirely reasonable and lets gcc use an already available parity flag should one be available.

The inline wrapper, of course, takes care of the type mangling.