From: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 fixes for 6.6-rc7
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2023 15:17:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <your-ad-here.call-01697980674-ext-9589@work.hours> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjxAk=PQBX4OvscNfGKfc+M8iKmNd6D39wOZzXV0k729w@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:08:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> in case you or somebody has a better idea for BITS_TO_LONG handling
> than just "you need to check for zero before and after".
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 10:56, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > If you *do* want to add proper overflow handling, you'd need to either
> > fix BITS_TO_LONGS() some way (which is actually non-trivial since it
> > needs to be able to stay a constant and only use the argument once),
> > or you do something like
> >
> > if (!bits)
> > return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
> > longs = BITS_TO_LONG(bits);
> > if (!longs)
> > return NULL;
> > return vzalloc(longs * sizeof(long));
This might work.
BITS_TO_<TYPE>(bits) utilizes __KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP, which may potentially
result in an overflow condition when
bits > ULONG_MAX - sizeof(<TYPE>) * 8 + 1.
To resolve this issue, avoid using the overflow-prone
__KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP. To meet the requirements of BITS_TO<TYPE>(bits)
for remaining constant and preventing side effects from multiple
argument uses, employ __is_constexpr to differentiate between constant
and non-constant cases, employing a helper function in the latter.
In the constant case, this ensures compatibility with constructs like
DECLARE_BITMAP. While in the non-constant case, the __bits_to_elem_count
function could be optimized for potentially improved code generation
by compilers, though this might come at the expense of readability and
visual consistency between the constant and non-constant cases.
I could further investigate if this approach, in general, appears acceptable.
---
include/linux/bitops.h | 18 ++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
index 2ba557e067fe..72be25d4b95d 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitops.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
@@ -15,11 +15,21 @@
# define aligned_byte_mask(n) (~0xffUL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 8 - 8*(n)))
#endif
+static inline unsigned long __bits_to_elem_count(size_t nr, size_t sz)
+{
+ return nr / sz + (nr % sz ? 1 : 0);
+}
+
+#define BITS_TO_ELEM_COUNT(nr, sz) \
+ __builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(nr), \
+ (nr) / sz + ((nr) % sz ? 1 : 0), \
+ __bits_to_elem_count((nr), sz))
+
#define BITS_PER_TYPE(type) (sizeof(type) * BITS_PER_BYTE)
-#define BITS_TO_LONGS(nr) __KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(long))
-#define BITS_TO_U64(nr) __KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(u64))
-#define BITS_TO_U32(nr) __KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(u32))
-#define BITS_TO_BYTES(nr) __KERNEL_DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(char))
+#define BITS_TO_LONGS(nr) BITS_TO_ELEM_COUNT(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(long))
+#define BITS_TO_U64(nr) BITS_TO_ELEM_COUNT(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(u64))
+#define BITS_TO_U32(nr) BITS_TO_ELEM_COUNT(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(u32))
+#define BITS_TO_BYTES(nr) BITS_TO_ELEM_COUNT(nr, BITS_PER_TYPE(char))
extern unsigned int __sw_hweight8(unsigned int w);
extern unsigned int __sw_hweight16(unsigned int w);
--
2.39.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-22 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-21 9:44 [GIT PULL] s390 fixes for 6.6-rc7 Vasily Gorbik
2023-10-21 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-21 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-22 13:17 ` Vasily Gorbik [this message]
2023-10-22 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-23 16:09 ` Vasily Gorbik
2023-10-23 16:11 ` [PATCH] s390/pci: remove custom and misleading bitmap_vzalloc Vasily Gorbik
2023-10-23 16:31 ` Niklas Schnelle
2023-10-21 17:57 ` [GIT PULL] s390 fixes for 6.6-rc7 pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=your-ad-here.call-01697980674-ext-9589@work.hours \
--to=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox