Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1728423
| From | "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | RE: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) |
| Date | 2017-09-07 22:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <unbUm-5ay-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <un9fT-3ll-73@gated-at.bofh.it> <un9IR-3K0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <una2d-3SJ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <unbrj-50W-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Since user is u64, it is best to have a predictable return value for all possible values of user. So maybe:
static u64 user2rate_bytes(u64 user)
{
u64 r;
r = user ? U32_MAX / (u32) min(user, U32_MAX) : U32_MAX;
r = (r - 1) << XT_HASHLIMIT_BYTE_SHIFT;
return r;
}
-----Original Message-----
From: Vishwanath Pai [mailto:vpai@akamai.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:17 PM
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>; Lubashev, Igor <ilubashe@akamai.com>; Hunt, Joshua <johunt@akamai.com>; Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>; Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>; Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>; the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>; Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>; Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>; Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label)
On 09/07/2017 02:43 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Note: that patch has *exactly* the issue I was talking about above.
>
> Doing that
>
> if (user > 0xFFFFFFFFULL)
> return 0;
>
> is different from the old code, which used to result in a zero in the
> divide, and then
>
> r = (r - 1) << 4;
>
> would cause it to return a large value.
>
> So the patch in question doesn't just fix the build error, it
> completely changes the semantics of the function too.
>
> I *think* the new behavior is likely what you want, but these kinds of
> things should be _described_.
>
> Also, even with the patch, we have garbage:
>
> 0xFFFFFFFFULL / (u32)user
>
> why is that sub-expression pointlessly doing a 64-bit divide with a
> 32-bit number? The compiler is hopefully smart enough to point things
> out, but that "ULL" really is _wrong_ there, and could cause a stupid
> compiler to still do a 64-bit divide (although hopefully the simpler
> version that is 64/32).
>
> So please clarify both the correct behavior _and_ the actual typing of
> the divide, ok?
>
> Linus
The value of 'user' is sent from userspace, which is the return value of this function:
static uint64_t bytes_to_cost(uint32_t bytes) {
uint32_t r = bytes >> XT_HASHLIMIT_BYTE_SHIFT;
return UINT32_MAX / (r+1);
}
What user2rate_bytes() is trying to do is the opposite of above. The size of 'user' is 64bit for a different reason altogether, but in this case it is guaranteed to be always < U32_MAX. And hence using 64bit divide is completely pointless (which I now realize).
Writing U32INT_MAX as 0xFFFFFFFFULL was a mistake on my part. I could have avoided all of this by using built-in constants instead of trying to define them myself. I will rewrite the function as below and send out another patch:
static u64 user2rate_bytes(u64 user)
{
u64 r;
r = user ? U32_MAX / (u32) user : U32_MAX;
r = (r - 1) << XT_HASHLIMIT_BYTE_SHIFT;
return r;
}
-Vishwanath
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-09-07 20:00 +0200
Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Vishwanath Pai <vpai@akamai.com> - 2017-09-07 20:30 +0200
Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-09-07 20:50 +0200
Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Vishwanath Pai <vpai@akamai.com> - 2017-09-07 22:20 +0200
Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-09-07 22:50 +0200
Re: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) Vishwanath Pai <vpai@akamai.com> - 2017-09-07 23:30 +0200
RE: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label) "Lubashev, Igor" <ilubashe@akamai.com> - 2017-09-07 22:50 +0200
csiph-web