On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 21:43:02 +0100 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Determine if a value lies within a range more efficiently (subtraction +
> comparison vs two comparisons and an AND). It also has useful (under
> some circumstances) behaviour if the range exceeds the maximum value of
> the type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> --- a/include/linux/minmax.h
> +++ b/include/linux/minmax.h
> @@ -158,6 +158,32 @@
> */
> #define clamp_val(val, lo, hi) clamp_t(typeof(val), val, lo, hi)
>
> +static inline bool in_range64(u64 val, u64 start, u64 len)
> +{
> + return (val - start) < len;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool in_range32(u32 val, u32 start, u32 len)
> +{
> + return (val - start) < len;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * in_range - Determine if a value lies within a range.
> + * @val: Value to test.
> + * @start: First value in range.
> + * @len: Number of values in range.
> + *
> + * This is more efficient than "if (start <= val && val < (start + len))".
> + * It also gives a different answer if @start + @len overflows the size of
> + * the type by a sufficient amount to encompass @val. Decide for yourself
> + * which behaviour you want, or prove that start + len never overflow.
> + * Do not blindly replace one form with the other.
> + */
> +#define in_range(val, start, len) \
> + sizeof(start) <= sizeof(u32) ? in_range32(val, start, len) : \
> + in_range64(val, start, len)
There's nothing here to prevent callers from passing a mixture of
32-bit and 64-bit values, possibly resulting in truncation of `val' or
`len'.
Obviously caller is being dumb, but I think it's cost-free to check all
three of the arguments for 64-bitness?
Or do a min()/max()-style check for consistently typed arguments?
