Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:05:48AM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> > > index fd9d7f2c4d64..a605cf66b83e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_cm.c
> > > @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static int ipoib_cm_req_handler(struct ib_cm_id *cm_id,
> > >               goto err_qp;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > -     psn = prandom_u32() & 0xffffff;
> > > +     psn = get_random_u32() & 0xffffff;
> >
> >  prandom_max(0xffffff + 1)
> 
> That'd work, but again it's not more clear. Authors here are going for
> a 24-bit number, and masking seems like a clear way to express that.

vs just asking directly for a 24 bit number?

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:05:48AM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 6:47 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 11:48:42PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

...

> > > -     u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> > > +     u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> >
> > Maybe this wants to be written as
> >
> > (prandom_max(U32_MAX >> 7) << 7) | 7

> > ?
> 
> Holy smokes. Yea I guess maybe? It doesn't exactly gain anything or
> make the code clearer though, and is a little bit more magical than
> I'd like on a first pass.

Shouldn't the two first 7s to be 3s?

...

> > > -     psn = prandom_u32() & 0xffffff;
> > > +     psn = get_random_u32() & 0xffffff;
> >
> >  prandom_max(0xffffff + 1)
> 
> That'd work, but again it's not more clear. Authors here are going for
> a 24-bit number, and masking seems like a clear way to express that.

We have some 24-bit APIs (and 48-bit) already in kernel, why not to have
get_random_u24() ?


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 23:48 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> The prandom_u32() function has been a deprecated inline wrapper around
> get_random_u32() for several releases now, and compiles down to the
> exact same code. Replace the deprecated wrapper with a direct call to
> the real function.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c
[]
> @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static int send_connect(struct c4iw_ep *ep)
>  				   &ep->com.remote_addr;
>  	int ret;
>  	enum chip_type adapter_type = ep->com.dev->rdev.lldi.adapter_type;
> -	u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> +	u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;

trivia:

There are somewhat odd size mismatches here.

I had to think a tiny bit if random() returned a value from 0 to 7
and was promoted to a 64 bit value then truncated to 32 bit.

Perhaps these would be clearer as ~7U and not ~7UL

>  	struct net_device *netdev;
>  	u64 params;
>  
> @@ -2469,7 +2469,7 @@ static int accept_cr(struct c4iw_ep *ep, struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!is_t4(adapter_type)) {
> -		u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> +		u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;

etc...

drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c:	u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c:		u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
drivers/net/ethernet/chelsio/inline_crypto/chtls/chtls_cm.c:	rpl5->iss = cpu_to_be32((prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1);
drivers/scsi/cxgbi/cxgb4i/cxgb4i.c:		u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
drivers/scsi/cxgbi/cxgb4i/cxgb4i.c:		u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
drivers/target/iscsi/cxgbit/cxgbit_cm.c:	rpl5->iss = cpu_to_be32((prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1);


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RE: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

[David Laight]

From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 12 October 2022 20:17
> 
> On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 23:48 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > The prandom_u32() function has been a deprecated inline wrapper around
> > get_random_u32() for several releases now, and compiles down to the
> > exact same code. Replace the deprecated wrapper with a direct call to
> > the real function.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c
> []
> > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static int send_connect(struct c4iw_ep *ep)
> >  				   &ep->com.remote_addr;
> >  	int ret;
> >  	enum chip_type adapter_type = ep->com.dev->rdev.lldi.adapter_type;
> > -	u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> > +	u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> 
> trivia:
> 
> There are somewhat odd size mismatches here.
> 
> I had to think a tiny bit if random() returned a value from 0 to 7
> and was promoted to a 64 bit value then truncated to 32 bit.
> 
> Perhaps these would be clearer as ~7U and not ~7UL

That makes no difference - the compiler will generate the same code.

The real question is WTF is the code doing?
The '& ~7u' clears the bottom 3 bits.
The '- 1' then sets the bottom 3 bits and decrements the
(random) high bits.

So is the same as get_random_u32() | 7.
But I bet the coder had something else in mind.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] treewide: use get_random_u32() when possible

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2022-10-12 at 21:29 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> > Sent: 12 October 2022 20:17
> > 
> > On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 23:48 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > The prandom_u32() function has been a deprecated inline wrapper around
> > > get_random_u32() for several releases now, and compiles down to the
> > > exact same code. Replace the deprecated wrapper with a direct call to
> > > the real function.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb4/cm.c
> > []
> > > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static int send_connect(struct c4iw_ep *ep)
> > >  				   &ep->com.remote_addr;
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  	enum chip_type adapter_type = ep->com.dev->rdev.lldi.adapter_type;
> > > -	u32 isn = (prandom_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> > > +	u32 isn = (get_random_u32() & ~7UL) - 1;
> > 
> > trivia:
> > 
> > There are somewhat odd size mismatches here.
> > 
> > I had to think a tiny bit if random() returned a value from 0 to 7
> > and was promoted to a 64 bit value then truncated to 32 bit.
> > 
> > Perhaps these would be clearer as ~7U and not ~7UL
> 
> That makes no difference - the compiler will generate the same code.

True, more or less.  It's more a question for the reader.

> The real question is WTF is the code doing?

True.

> The '& ~7u' clears the bottom 3 bits.
> The '- 1' then sets the bottom 3 bits and decrements the
> (random) high bits.

Right.

> So is the same as get_random_u32() | 7.

True, it's effectively the same as the upper 29 bits are random
anyway and the bottom 3 bits are always set.

> But I bet the coder had something else in mind.

Likely.

And it was also likely copy/pasted a few times.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel