From: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <adech.fo@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
"long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: use IS_ALIGNED in memory_is_poisoned_8()
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:19:24 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPAsAGxq8pKuGpmZ9T-JB_3MP+QcTgsUpFOv-0u2a+tqfkej9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150911154730.3a2151a0b111fed01acdaaa1@linux-foundation.org>
2015-09-12 1:47 GMT+03:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:02:29 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
>> - if (likely(((addr + 7) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= 7))
>> + if (likely(IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)))
>> return false;
>
> Wouldn't IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE) be more appropriate?
>
> But I'm not really sure what the original code is trying to do.
>
Original code is trying to estimate whether we should check 2 shadow
bytes or just 1 should be enough.
> if ((addr + 7) & 7) >= 7)
>
> can only evaluate true if ((addr + 7) & 7) equals 7, so the ">=" could
> be "==".
>
Yes, it could be "==".
">=" is just for consistency with similar code in memory_is_poisoned_2/4.
If I'm not mistaken generic formula for such check looks like this:
((addr + size - 1) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= ((size - 1) &
KASAN_SHADOW_MASK)
But when size >= KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE we could just check for alignment.
> I think. The code looks a bit weird. A code comment would help.
>
> And how come memory_is_poisoned_16() does IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)? Should
> it be 16?
>
No, If 16 bytes are 8-byte aligned, then shadow is 2-bytes.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <adech.fo@gmail.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
"long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: use IS_ALIGNED in memory_is_poisoned_8()
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:19:24 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPAsAGxq8pKuGpmZ9T-JB_3MP+QcTgsUpFOv-0u2a+tqfkej9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150911154730.3a2151a0b111fed01acdaaa1@linux-foundation.org>
2015-09-12 1:47 GMT+03:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:02:29 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> wrote:
>> - if (likely(((addr + 7) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= 7))
>> + if (likely(IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)))
>> return false;
>
> Wouldn't IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE) be more appropriate?
>
> But I'm not really sure what the original code is trying to do.
>
Original code is trying to estimate whether we should check 2 shadow
bytes or just 1 should be enough.
> if ((addr + 7) & 7) >= 7)
>
> can only evaluate true if ((addr + 7) & 7) equals 7, so the ">=" could
> be "==".
>
Yes, it could be "==".
">=" is just for consistency with similar code in memory_is_poisoned_2/4.
If I'm not mistaken generic formula for such check looks like this:
((addr + size - 1) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= ((size - 1) &
KASAN_SHADOW_MASK)
But when size >= KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE we could just check for alignment.
> I think. The code looks a bit weird. A code comment would help.
>
> And how come memory_is_poisoned_16() does IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)? Should
> it be 16?
>
No, If 16 bytes are 8-byte aligned, then shadow is 2-bytes.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-14 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-11 2:02 [PATCH] kasan: use IS_ALIGNED in memory_is_poisoned_8() Xishi Qiu
2015-09-11 2:02 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-09-11 22:47 ` Andrew Morton
2015-09-11 22:47 ` Andrew Morton
2015-09-14 1:17 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-09-14 1:17 ` Xishi Qiu
2015-09-14 13:19 ` Andrey Ryabinin [this message]
2015-09-14 13:19 ` Andrey Ryabinin
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=CAPAsAGxq8pKuGpmZ9T-JB_3MP+QcTgsUpFOv-0u2a+tqfkej9w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=adech.fo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=long.wanglong@huawei.com \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=qiuxishi@huawei.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.