From: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RESEND] x86: checksum: Fix unaligned checksums on < i686
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:39:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240720063937.2311958-2-davidgow@google.com> (raw)
The checksum_32 code was originally written to only handle 2-byte
aligned buffers, but was later extended to support arbitrary alignment.
However, the non-PPro variant doesn't apply the carry before jumping to
the 2- or 4-byte aligned versions, which clear CF.
This causes the new checksum_kunit test to fail, as it runs with a large
number of different possible alignments and both with and without
carries.
For example:
./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch i386 --kconfig_add CONFIG_M486=y checksum
Gives:
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: checksum
1..3
ok 1 test_csum_fixed_random_inputs
# test_csum_all_carry_inputs: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/checksum_kunit.c:267
Expected result == expec, but
result == 65281 (0xff01)
expec == 65280 (0xff00)
not ok 2 test_csum_all_carry_inputs
# test_csum_no_carry_inputs: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/checksum_kunit.c:314
Expected result == expec, but
result == 65535 (0xffff)
expec == 65534 (0xfffe)
not ok 3 test_csum_no_carry_inputs
With this patch, it passes.
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: checksum
1..3
ok 1 test_csum_fixed_random_inputs
ok 2 test_csum_all_carry_inputs
ok 3 test_csum_no_carry_inputs
I also tested it on a real 486DX2, with the same results.
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
---
Re-sending this from [1]. While there's an argument that the whole
32-bit checksum code could do with rewriting, it's:
(a) worth fixing before someone takes the time to rewrite it, and
(b) worth any future rewrite starting from a point where the tests pass
I don't think there should be any downside to this fix: it only affects
ancient computers, and adds a single instruction which isn't in a loop.
Cheers,
-- David
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230704083206.693155-2-davidgow@google.com/
---
arch/x86/lib/checksum_32.S | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/checksum_32.S b/arch/x86/lib/checksum_32.S
index 68f7fa3e1322..a5123b29b403 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/checksum_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/checksum_32.S
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(csum_partial)
jl 8f
movzbl (%esi), %ebx
adcl %ebx, %eax
+ adcl $0, %eax
roll $8, %eax
inc %esi
testl $2, %esi
--
2.45.2.1089.g2a221341d9-goog
next reply other threads:[~2024-07-20 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-20 6:39 David Gow [this message]
2024-07-22 4:57 ` Noah Goldstein
2025-12-19 8:21 ` David Gow
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=20240720063937.2311958-2-davidgow@google.com \
--to=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=goldstein.w.n@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®