| Message ID | 20181008211554.5355-2-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | crypto: use unaligned accessors in aligned fast paths | expand |
Hi Ard, On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:15:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On ARM v6 and later, we define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > because the ordinary load/store instructions (ldr, ldrh, ldrb) can > tolerate any misalignment of the memory address. However, load/store > double and load/store multiple instructions (ldrd, ldm) may still only > be used on memory addresses that are 32-bit aligned, and so we have to > use the CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS macro with care, or we > may end up with a severe performance hit due to alignment traps that > require fixups by the kernel. > > Fortunately, the get_unaligned() accessors do the right thing: when > building for ARMv6 or later, the compiler will emit unaligned accesses > using the ordinary load/store instructions (but avoid the ones that > require 32-bit alignment). When building for older ARM, those accessors > will emit the appropriate sequence of ldrb/mov/orr instructions. And on > architectures that can truly tolerate any kind of misalignment, the > get_unaligned() accessors resolve to the leXX_to_cpup accessors that > operate on aligned addresses. > > So switch to the unaligned accessors for the aligned fast path. This > will create the exact same code on architectures that can really > tolerate any kind of misalignment, and generate code for ARMv6+ that > avoids load/store instructions that trigger alignment faults. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > --- > crypto/memneq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/crypto/memneq.c b/crypto/memneq.c > index afed1bd16aee..0f46a6150f22 100644 > --- a/crypto/memneq.c > +++ b/crypto/memneq.c > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ > */ > > #include <crypto/algapi.h> > +#include <asm/unaligned.h> > > #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_CRYPTO_MEMNEQ > > @@ -71,7 +72,10 @@ __crypto_memneq_generic(const void *a, const void *b, size_t size) > > #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) > while (size >= sizeof(unsigned long)) { > - neq |= *(unsigned long *)a ^ *(unsigned long *)b; > + unsigned long const *p = a; > + unsigned long const *q = b; > + > + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > a += sizeof(unsigned long); > b += sizeof(unsigned long); > @@ -95,18 +99,24 @@ static inline unsigned long __crypto_memneq_16(const void *a, const void *b) > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > if (sizeof(unsigned long) == 8) { > - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b); > + unsigned long const *p = a; > + unsigned long const *q = b; > + > + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b+8); > + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > } else if (sizeof(unsigned int) == 4) { > - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b); > + unsigned int const *p = a; > + unsigned int const *q = b; > + > + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+4) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+4); > + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+8); > + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+12) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+12); > + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > } else > #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS */ This looks good, but maybe now we should get rid of the !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS path too? At least for the 16-byte case: static inline unsigned long __crypto_memneq_16(const void *a, const void *b) { const unsigned long *p = a, *q = b; unsigned long neq = 0; BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*p) != 4 && sizeof(*p) != 8); neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); if (sizeof(*p) == 4) { neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); } return neq; }
On 9 October 2018 at 05:34, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Ard, > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:15:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On ARM v6 and later, we define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS >> because the ordinary load/store instructions (ldr, ldrh, ldrb) can >> tolerate any misalignment of the memory address. However, load/store >> double and load/store multiple instructions (ldrd, ldm) may still only >> be used on memory addresses that are 32-bit aligned, and so we have to >> use the CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS macro with care, or we >> may end up with a severe performance hit due to alignment traps that >> require fixups by the kernel. >> >> Fortunately, the get_unaligned() accessors do the right thing: when >> building for ARMv6 or later, the compiler will emit unaligned accesses >> using the ordinary load/store instructions (but avoid the ones that >> require 32-bit alignment). When building for older ARM, those accessors >> will emit the appropriate sequence of ldrb/mov/orr instructions. And on >> architectures that can truly tolerate any kind of misalignment, the >> get_unaligned() accessors resolve to the leXX_to_cpup accessors that >> operate on aligned addresses. >> >> So switch to the unaligned accessors for the aligned fast path. This >> will create the exact same code on architectures that can really >> tolerate any kind of misalignment, and generate code for ARMv6+ that >> avoids load/store instructions that trigger alignment faults. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> >> --- >> crypto/memneq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/crypto/memneq.c b/crypto/memneq.c >> index afed1bd16aee..0f46a6150f22 100644 >> --- a/crypto/memneq.c >> +++ b/crypto/memneq.c >> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include <crypto/algapi.h> >> +#include <asm/unaligned.h> >> >> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_CRYPTO_MEMNEQ >> >> @@ -71,7 +72,10 @@ __crypto_memneq_generic(const void *a, const void *b, size_t size) >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) >> while (size >= sizeof(unsigned long)) { >> - neq |= *(unsigned long *)a ^ *(unsigned long *)b; >> + unsigned long const *p = a; >> + unsigned long const *q = b; >> + >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> a += sizeof(unsigned long); >> b += sizeof(unsigned long); >> @@ -95,18 +99,24 @@ static inline unsigned long __crypto_memneq_16(const void *a, const void *b) >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS >> if (sizeof(unsigned long) == 8) { >> - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b); >> + unsigned long const *p = a; >> + unsigned long const *q = b; >> + >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b+8); >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> } else if (sizeof(unsigned int) == 4) { >> - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b); >> + unsigned int const *p = a; >> + unsigned int const *q = b; >> + >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+4) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+4); >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+8); >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+12) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+12); >> + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); >> OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); >> } else >> #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS */ > > This looks good, but maybe now we should get rid of the > !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS path too? > At least for the 16-byte case: > > static inline unsigned long __crypto_memneq_16(const void *a, const void *b) > { > const unsigned long *p = a, *q = b; > unsigned long neq = 0; > > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*p) != 4 && sizeof(*p) != 8); > neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > if (sizeof(*p) == 4) { > neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); > OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); > } > return neq; > } Yes that makes sense.
diff --git a/crypto/memneq.c b/crypto/memneq.c index afed1bd16aee..0f46a6150f22 100644 --- a/crypto/memneq.c +++ b/crypto/memneq.c @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ */ #include <crypto/algapi.h> +#include <asm/unaligned.h> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_CRYPTO_MEMNEQ @@ -71,7 +72,10 @@ __crypto_memneq_generic(const void *a, const void *b, size_t size) #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) while (size >= sizeof(unsigned long)) { - neq |= *(unsigned long *)a ^ *(unsigned long *)b; + unsigned long const *p = a; + unsigned long const *q = b; + + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); a += sizeof(unsigned long); b += sizeof(unsigned long); @@ -95,18 +99,24 @@ static inline unsigned long __crypto_memneq_16(const void *a, const void *b) #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if (sizeof(unsigned long) == 8) { - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b); + unsigned long const *p = a; + unsigned long const *q = b; + + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); - neq |= *(unsigned long *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned long *)(b+8); + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); } else if (sizeof(unsigned int) == 4) { - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b); + unsigned int const *p = a; + unsigned int const *q = b; + + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+4) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+4); + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+8) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+8); + neq |= get_unaligned(p++) ^ get_unaligned(q++); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); - neq |= *(unsigned int *)(a+12) ^ *(unsigned int *)(b+12); + neq |= get_unaligned(p) ^ get_unaligned(q); OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(neq); } else #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS */
On ARM v6 and later, we define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS because the ordinary load/store instructions (ldr, ldrh, ldrb) can tolerate any misalignment of the memory address. However, load/store double and load/store multiple instructions (ldrd, ldm) may still only be used on memory addresses that are 32-bit aligned, and so we have to use the CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS macro with care, or we may end up with a severe performance hit due to alignment traps that require fixups by the kernel. Fortunately, the get_unaligned() accessors do the right thing: when building for ARMv6 or later, the compiler will emit unaligned accesses using the ordinary load/store instructions (but avoid the ones that require 32-bit alignment). When building for older ARM, those accessors will emit the appropriate sequence of ldrb/mov/orr instructions. And on architectures that can truly tolerate any kind of misalignment, the get_unaligned() accessors resolve to the leXX_to_cpup accessors that operate on aligned addresses. So switch to the unaligned accessors for the aligned fast path. This will create the exact same code on architectures that can really tolerate any kind of misalignment, and generate code for ARMv6+ that avoids load/store instructions that trigger alignment faults. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> --- crypto/memneq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)