instead of htons_constant(), which is for... constants.
Fixes: 5bf200ae8a1a ("tcp, udp: Don't include destination address in partially
precomputed csums")
Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com>
---
ip.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ip.h b/ip.h
index 9be4778..b9aedf6 100644
--- a/ip.h
+++ b/ip.h
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
.daddr = 0, \
}
#define L2_BUF_IP4_PSUM(proto) ((uint32_t)htons_constant(0x4500) + \
- (uint32_t)htons_constant(0xff00 | (proto)))
+ (uint32_t)htons(0xff00 | (proto)))
#define L2_BUF_IP6_INIT(proto) \
{ \
--
2.39.2
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:instead of htons_constant(), which is for... constants. Fixes: 5bf200ae8a1a ("tcp, udp: Don't include destination address in partially precomputed csums") Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com>Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> It seems to get the job done, at what's probably negligible practical cost. My perfectionist side has some misgivings: AIUI, the point of htons_constant() isn't so much that it *requires* a constant, but that because it's open-coded in plain arithmetic operations the compiler will be able to constant fold it, if it is invoked with a constant parameter. Since htons() is a library function, it probably can't be elided in that way. The cost of htons_constant() is that it may be a less optimal implementation when the calculation really does need to be done at runtime. I'm still a bit baffled at that Coverity warning: I can't see why it doesn't preclude any situation where you want to write out calculations for clarity, even though you know the result will be a constant (and you expect the compiler to fold it).--- ip.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/ip.h b/ip.h index 9be4778..b9aedf6 100644 --- a/ip.h +++ b/ip.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ .daddr = 0, \ } #define L2_BUF_IP4_PSUM(proto) ((uint32_t)htons_constant(0x4500) + \ - (uint32_t)htons_constant(0xff00 | (proto))) + (uint32_t)htons(0xff00 | (proto))) #define L2_BUF_IP6_INIT(proto) \ { \-- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:55:32 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Right, yes, it doesn't require a constant. Still, I'd argue it's meant for constants. :)instead of htons_constant(), which is for... constants. Fixes: 5bf200ae8a1a ("tcp, udp: Don't include destination address in partially precomputed csums") Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com>Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> It seems to get the job done, at what's probably negligible practical cost. My perfectionist side has some misgivings: AIUI, the point of htons_constant() isn't so much that it *requires* a constant, but that because it's open-coded in plain arithmetic operations the compiler will be able to constant fold it, if it is invoked with a constant parameter.Since htons() is a library function, it probably can't be elided in that way. The cost of htons_constant() is that it may be a less optimal implementation when the calculation really does need to be done at runtime. I'm still a bit baffled at that Coverity warning: I can't see why it doesn't preclude any situation where you want to write out calculations for clarity, even though you know the result will be a constant (and you expect the compiler to fold it)....maybe it actually does preclude any situation like that? This is the only example we have with __bswap_constant16(), and variables mixed (ORed) with constants. Other usages of __bswap_constant16() have just a variable as argument (no "problem" with that, of course), and we use __bswap_constant_32() with constants only. -- Stefano
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 10:28:38AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:55:32 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:Right, but AFAICT there's nothing that should be specific to bswap_constant here, since that's just expanding to some shifts and masks.On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Right, yes, it doesn't require a constant. Still, I'd argue it's meant for constants. :)instead of htons_constant(), which is for... constants. Fixes: 5bf200ae8a1a ("tcp, udp: Don't include destination address in partially precomputed csums") Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio(a)redhat.com>Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> It seems to get the job done, at what's probably negligible practical cost. My perfectionist side has some misgivings: AIUI, the point of htons_constant() isn't so much that it *requires* a constant, but that because it's open-coded in plain arithmetic operations the compiler will be able to constant fold it, if it is invoked with a constant parameter.Since htons() is a library function, it probably can't be elided in that way. The cost of htons_constant() is that it may be a less optimal implementation when the calculation really does need to be done at runtime. I'm still a bit baffled at that Coverity warning: I can't see why it doesn't preclude any situation where you want to write out calculations for clarity, even though you know the result will be a constant (and you expect the compiler to fold it)....maybe it actually does preclude any situation like that? This is the only example we have with __bswap_constant16(), and variables mixed (ORed) with constants.Other usages of __bswap_constant16() have just a variable as argument (no "problem" with that, of course), and we use __bswap_constant_32() with constants only.-- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson