From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/10] lib: packing: fix QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT behavior
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:22:48 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241003152248.osrytygvz7nev2d3@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241002-packing-kunit-tests-and-split-pack-unpack-v2-8-8373e551eae3@intel.com> <20241002-packing-kunit-tests-and-split-pack-unpack-v2-8-8373e551eae3@intel.com>
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:51:57PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> The QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT quirk is intended to modify pack() and unpack()
> so that the most significant bit of each byte in the packed layout is on
> the right.
>
> The way the quirk is currently implemented is broken whenever the packing
> code packs or unpacks any value that is not exactly a full byte.
>
> The broken behavior can occur when packing any values smaller than one
> byte, when packing any value that is not exactly a whole number of bytes,
> or when the packing is not aligned to a byte boundary.
>
> This quirk is documented in the following way:
>
> 1. Normally (no quirks), we would do it like this:
>
> ::
>
> 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32
> 7 6 5 4
> 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
> 3 2 1 0
>
> <snip>
>
> 2. If QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT is set, we do it like this:
>
> ::
>
> 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
> 7 6 5 4
> 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
> 3 2 1 0
>
> That is, QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT does not affect byte positioning, but
> inverts bit offsets inside a byte.
>
> Essentially, the mapping for physical bit offsets should be reserved for a
> given byte within the payload. This reversal should be fixed to the bytes
> in the packing layout.
>
> The logic to implement this quirk is handled within the
> adjust_for_msb_right_quirk() function. This function does not work properly
> when dealing with the bytes that contain only a partial amount of data.
>
> In particular, consider trying to pack or unpack the range 53-44. We should
> always be mapping the bits from the logical ordering to their physical
> ordering in the same way, regardless of what sequence of bits we are
> unpacking.
>
> This, we should grab the following logical bits:
>
> Logical: 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 45 44 43 42 41 40 39
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>
> And pack them into the physical bits:
>
> Physical: 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
> Logical: 48 49 50 51 52 53 44 45 46 47
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>
> The current logic in adjust_for_msb_right_quirk is broken. I believe it is
> intending to map according to the following:
>
> Physical: 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
> Logical: 48 49 50 51 52 53 44 45 46 47
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>
> That is, it tries to keep the bits at the start and end of a packing
> together. This is wrong, as it makes the packing change what bit is being
> mapped to what based on which bits you're currently packing or unpacking.
>
> Worse, the actual calculations within adjust_for_msb_right_quirk don't make
> sense.
>
> Consider the case when packing the last byte of an unaligned packing. It
> might have a start bit of 7 and an end bit of 5. This would have a width of
> 3 bits. The new_start_bit will be calculated as the width - the box_end_bit
> - 1. This will underflow and produce a negative value, which will
> ultimate result in generating a new box_mask of all 0s.
>
> For any other values, the result of the calculations of the
> new_box_end_bit, new_box_start_bit, and the new box_mask will result in the
> exact same values for the box_end_bit, box_start_bit, and box_mask. This
> makes the calculations completely irrelevant.
>
> If box_end_bit is 0, and box_start_bit is 7, then the entire function of
> adjust_for_msb_right_quirk will boil down to just:
>
> *to_write = bitrev8(*to_write)
>
> The other adjustments are attempting (incorrectly) to keep the bits in the
> same place but just reversed. This is not the right behavior even if
> implemented correctly, as it leaves the mapping dependent on the bit values
> being packed or unpacked.
>
> Remove adjust_for_msb_right_quirk() and just use bitrev8 to reverse the
> byte order when interacting with the packed data.
>
> In particular, for packing, we need to reverse both the box_mask and the
> physical value being packed. This is done after shifting the value by
> box_end_bit so that the reversed mapping is always aligned to the physical
> buffer byte boundary. The box_mask is reversed as we're about to use it to
> clear any stale bits in the physical buffer at this block.
>
> For unpacking, we need to reverse the contents of the physical buffer
> *before* masking with the box_mask. This is critical, as the box_mask is a
> logical mask of the bit layout before handling the QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT.
>
> Add several new tests which cover this behavior. These tests will fail
> without the fix and pass afterwards. Note that no current drivers make use
> of QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT. I suspect this is why there have been no reports
> of this inconsistency before.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Tested-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-03 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-02 21:51 [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] packing: various improvements and KUnit tests Jacob Keller
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 01/10] lib: packing: refuse operating on bit indices which exceed size of buffer Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:02 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 02/10] lib: packing: adjust definitions and implementation for arbitrary buffer lengths Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:05 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 03/10] lib: packing: remove kernel-doc from header file Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:05 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 04/10] lib: packing: add pack() and unpack() wrappers over packing() Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:13 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 05/10] lib: packing: duplicate pack() and unpack() implementations Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:11 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 06/10] lib: packing: add KUnit tests adapted from selftests Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:18 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 07/10] lib: packing: add additional KUnit tests Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:21 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 08/10] lib: packing: fix QUIRK_MSB_ON_THE_RIGHT behavior Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:22 ` Vladimir Oltean [this message]
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 09/10] lib: packing: use BITS_PER_BYTE instead of 8 Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 15:23 ` Vladimir Oltean
2024-10-02 21:51 ` [PATCH net-next v2 10/10] lib: packing: use GENMASK() for box_mask Jacob Keller
2024-10-03 23:10 ` [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] packing: various improvements and KUnit tests patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20241003152248.osrytygvz7nev2d3@skbuf \
--to=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
/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