Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] reciprocal_divide: correction/update of the algorithm

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date: Thu Jan 16 2014 - 05:26:28 EST

Hi Eric!

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:07:26PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 00:23 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > Also, reciprocal_value() and reciprocal_divide() always return 0
> > for divisions by 1. This is a bit worrisome as those functions
> > also get used in mm/slab.c and lib/flex_array.c, apparently for
> > index calculation to access array slots.
> Hi Daniel
> This off-by-one limitation is a known one,
> and mm/slab.c does not have an issue with it because :
> - Minimal object size is not 1 byte, but 8 (or maybe 4)
> - We always divide a multiple of the divisor,
> so there is no off-by-one effect.
> Little attached prog does a brute force check if needed.
> So far, the only relevant issue was about BPF, and a better
> documentation of reciprocal_divide() use cases.
> (I let Jesse comment on the flex_array case)
> I am unsure we want to 'fix' things, we tried hard in the past to avoid
> divides, so the ones we use are usually because the divisor is not
> constant, so the reciprocal doesn't help.
> (BPF is fixed in David tree)
> Thanks !

You are right, we rewrite that part. The text is still from the first commit
message where we did no full impact analysis. ;)



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at