Hi
Static analysis with cppcheck picked up an interesting issue with the
following inline helper function in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c :
static inline void reg_set_seen(struct bpf_jit *jit, u32 b1)
{
u32 r1 = reg2hex[b1];
if (!jit->seen_reg[r1] && r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15)
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
}
Although I believe r1 is always within range, the range check on r1 is
being performed before the more cache/memory expensive lookup on
jit->seen_reg[r1]. I can't see why the range change is being performed
after the access of jit->seen_reg[r1]. The following seems more correct:
if (r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15 && !jit->seen_reg[r1])
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
..since the check on r1 are less expensive than !jit->seen_reg[r1] and
also the range check ensures the array access is not out of bounds. I
was just wondering if I'm missing something deeper to why the order is
the way it is.
Colin
On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 13:02 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
Hi
Static analysis with cppcheck picked up an interesting issue with the
following inline helper function in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c :
static inline void reg_set_seen(struct bpf_jit *jit, u32 b1)
{
u32 r1 = reg2hex[b1];
if (!jit->seen_reg[r1] && r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15)
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
}
Although I believe r1 is always within range, the range check on r1
is
being performed before the more cache/memory expensive lookup on
jit->seen_reg[r1]. I can't see why the range change is being
performed
after the access of jit->seen_reg[r1]. The following seems more
correct:
if (r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15 && !jit->seen_reg[r1])
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
..since the check on r1 are less expensive than !jit->seen_reg[r1]
and
also the range check ensures the array access is not out of bounds. I
was just wondering if I'm missing something deeper to why the order
is
the way it is.
Colin
Hi,
I think your analysis is correct, thanks for spotting this!
Even though I don't think the performance difference would be
measurable here, not confusing future readers is a good reason
to make a change that you suggest.
Do you plan to send a patch?
Best regards,
Ilya
On 15/07/2021 13:09, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
On Thu, 2021-07-15 at 13:02 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
quoted
Hi
Static analysis with cppcheck picked up an interesting issue with the
following inline helper function in arch/s390/net/bpf_jit_comp.c :
static inline void reg_set_seen(struct bpf_jit *jit, u32 b1)
{
u32 r1 = reg2hex[b1];
if (!jit->seen_reg[r1] && r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15)
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
}
Although I believe r1 is always within range, the range check on r1
is
being performed before the more cache/memory expensive lookup on
jit->seen_reg[r1]. I can't see why the range change is being
performed
after the access of jit->seen_reg[r1]. The following seems more
correct:
if (r1 >= 6 && r1 <= 15 && !jit->seen_reg[r1])
jit->seen_reg[r1] = 1;
..since the check on r1 are less expensive than !jit->seen_reg[r1]
and
also the range check ensures the array access is not out of bounds. I
was just wondering if I'm missing something deeper to why the order
is
the way it is.
Colin
Hi,
I think your analysis is correct, thanks for spotting this!
Even though I don't think the performance difference would be
measurable here, not confusing future readers is a good reason
to make a change that you suggest.
Do you plan to send a patch?
I'll send a patch later today. Colin
Best regards,
Ilya