Re: [PATCH v2 02/36] x86/uaccess: __chk_range_not_ok is unlikely to return true

[Ingo Molnar]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:47:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > This should improve code quality a bit.  It also shrinks the kernel
> > text.
> > 
> > Before:
> >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> > 21828379	5194760	1277952	28301091	1afd723 vmlinux
> >    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
> > 21827997	5194760	1277952	28300709	1afd5a5	vmlinux
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > index 3e911c68876e..09b1b0ab94b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
> > @@ -51,13 +51,13 @@ static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, un
> >  	 * limit, not add it to the address).
> >  	 */
> >  	if (__builtin_constant_p(size))
> > -		return addr > limit - size;
> > +		return unlikely(addr > limit - size);
> >  
> >  	/* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */
> >  	addr += size;
> > -	if (addr < size)
> > +	if (unlikely(addr < size))
> >  		return true;
> > -	return addr > limit;
> > +	return unlikely(addr > limit);
> 
> It certainly uglifies it though. Are the wins worth the (un-)readability
> hit?

Well, adding likely/unlikely hints in headers is OK I think, especially since 
these are performance sensitive user-access routines.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/