2015-09-12 1:47 GMT+03:00 Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:02:29 +0800 Xishi Qiu <qiuxi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> - if (likely(((addr + 7) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= 7))
>> + if (likely(IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)))
>> return false;
>
> Wouldn't IS_ALIGNED(addr, KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE) be more appropriate?
>
> But I'm not really sure what the original code is trying to do.
>
Original code is trying to estimate whether we should check 2 shadow
bytes or just 1 should be enough.
> if ((addr + 7) & 7) >= 7)
>
> can only evaluate true if ((addr + 7) & 7) equals 7, so the ">=" could
> be "==".
>
Yes, it could be "==".
">=" is just for consistency with similar code in memory_is_poisoned_2/4.
If I'm not mistaken generic formula for such check looks like this:
((addr + size - 1) & KASAN_SHADOW_MASK) >= ((size - 1) &
KASAN_SHADOW_MASK)
But when size >= KASAN_SHADOW_SCALE_SIZE we could just check for alignment.
> I think. The code looks a bit weird. A code comment would help.
>
> And how come memory_is_poisoned_16() does IS_ALIGNED(addr, 8)? Should
> it be 16?
>
No, If 16 bytes are 8-byte aligned, then shadow is 2-bytes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
