Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:13:21 +0200
From:   Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
To:     George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>, Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 27/50] drivers/s390/scsi/zcsp_fc.c: Use
 prandom_u32_max() for backoff
References: <202003281643.02SGhHN7015213@sdf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202003281643.02SGhHN7015213@sdf.org>
Message-Id: <20200331161321.GB17507@t480-pf1aa2c2>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 03:39:41PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
> We don't need crypto-grade random numbers for randomized backoffs.
> 
> (We could skip the if() if we wanted to rely on the undocumented fact
> that prandom_u32_max(0) always returns 0.  That would be a net time
> saving it port_scan_backoff == 0 is rare; if it's common, the if()
> is false often enough to pay for itself. Not sure which applies here.)
> 
> Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hello George,

it would be nice, if you could address the mails to the
driver-maintainers (`scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c`
will tell you that this is me and Steffen); I'd certainly have noticed
it earlier then :-).

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
> index b018b61bd168e..d24cafe02708f 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ unsigned int zfcp_fc_port_scan_backoff(void)
>  {
>  	if (!port_scan_backoff)
>  		return 0;
> -	return get_random_int() % port_scan_backoff;
> +	return prandom_u32_max(port_scan_backoff);

I think the change is fine. You are right, we don't need a crypto nonce
here.

I think I'd let the zero-check stand as is, because the internal
behaviour of prandom_u32_max() is, as you say, undocumented. This is not
a performance critical code-path for us anyway.

>  }
>  
>  static void zfcp_fc_port_scan_time(struct zfcp_adapter *adapter)
> -- 
> 2.26.0
> 

Steffen, do you have any objections? Otherwise I can queue this up -
minus the somewhat mangled subject - for when we send something next time.

-- 
Best Regards, Benjamin Block  / Linux on IBM Z Kernel Development / IBM Systems
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH    /    https://www.ibm.com/privacy
Vorsitz. AufsR.: Gregor Pillen         /        Gesch?ftsf?hrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: B?blingen / Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294