[PATCH] ARM: fix do_div() bug in big-endian systems

[Dave Martin]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:03:09PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Dave Martin wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 06:16:24PM +0800, Lu Xiangyu wrote:
> > > From: Xiangyu Lu <luxiangyu at huawei.com>
> > > 
> > > In big-endian systems, "%1" get the most significant part of the value, cause
> > > the instruction to get the wrong result.
> > > 
> > > When viewing ftrace record in big-endian ARM systems, we found that
> > > the timestamp errors:
> > > 
> > > swapper-0     [001]  1325.970000:      0:120:R ==> [001]    16:120:R events/1
> > > events/1-16   [001]  1325.970000:      16:120:S ==> [001]    0:120:R swapper
> > > swapper-0     [000]  1325.1000000:     0:120:R   + [000]    15:120:R events/0
> > > swapper-0     [000]  1325.1000000:     0:120:R ==> [000]    15:120:R events/0
> > > swapper-0     [000]  1326.030000:      0:120:R   + [000]  1150:120:R sshd
> > > swapper-0     [000]  1326.030000:      0:120:R ==> [000]  1150:120:R sshd
> > > 
> > > When viewed ftrace records, it will call the do_div(n, base) function, which
> > > achieved arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h in. When n = 10000000, base = 1000000, in
> > > do_div(n, base) will execute "umull %Q0, %R0, %1, %Q2".
> > > 
> > > Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> # 2.6.20+
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Wu <wuquanming at huawei.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiangyu Lu <luxiangyu at huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
> > > index 191ada6..662c7bd 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/div64.h
> > > @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
> > >  		/* Select the best insn combination to perform the   */	\
> > >  		/* actual __m * __n / (__p << 64) operation.         */	\
> > >  		if (!__c) {						\
> > > -			asm (	"umull	%Q0, %R0, %1, %Q2\n\t"		\
> > > +			asm (	"umull	%Q0, %R0, %Q1, %Q2\n\t"		\
> > 
> > This looks plausible: these if() clauses are all concerned with
> > multiplying the low parts of __m and __n together, and this seems
> > to be the only 64-bit asm operand reference where Q or R is suspiciously
> > missing: so it looks likely that "Q" is required here for consistency.
> > 
> > My understanding of the details of this code are limited: do you have
> > a simple test case to demonstrate the error and the fix?
> 
> No need -- it is indeed wrong on big endian and has been so for the last 
> 7.5 years.

OK, well with that sanity-check on my reasoning I'm happy to:

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin at arm.com>

I suggest you go ahead and send it to Russell's patch system.

Cheers
---Dave