Re: [PATCH 2/3] riscv: optimized memmove

From: Nick Kossifidis
Date: Tue Jan 30 2024 - 11:52:54 EST


On 1/30/24 15:12, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 01:39:10PM +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
On 1/28/24 13:10, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

When the destination buffer is before the source one, or when the
buffers doesn't overlap, it's safe to use memcpy() instead, which is
optimized to use a bigger data size possible.

Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxx>

I'd expect to have memmove handle both fw/bw copying and then memcpy being
an alias to memmove, to also take care when regions overlap and avoid
undefined behavior.

Hi Nick,

Here is somthing from man memcpy:

"void *memcpy(void dest[restrict .n], const void src[restrict .n],
size_t n);

The memcpy() function copies n bytes from memory area src to memory area dest.
The memory areas must not overlap. Use memmove(3) if the memory areas do over‐
lap."

IMHO, the "restrict" implies that there's no overlap. If overlap
happens, the manual doesn't say what will happen.

From another side, I have a concern: currently, other arch don't have
this alias behavior, IIUC(at least, per my understanding of arm and arm64
memcpy implementations)they just copy forward. I want to keep similar behavior
for riscv.

So I want to hear more before going towards alias-memcpy-to-memmove direction.

Thanks

If you read Matteo's original post that was also his suggestion, and Linus has also commented on that. In general it's better to handle the case where the regions provided to memcpy() overlap than to resort to "undefined behavior", I provided a backwards copy example that you can use so that we can have both fw and bw copying for memmove(), and use memmove() in any case. The [restrict .n] in the prototype is just there to say that the size of src is restricted by n (the next argument). If someone uses memcpy() with overlapping regions, which is always a possibility, in your case it'll result corrupted data, we won't even get a warning (still counts as undefined behavior) about it.

Regards,
Nick