linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:29:47 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, will.newton@...il.com, jbaron@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vapier@...too.org, cmetcalf@...era.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

[ added Segher Boessenkool and Paul Mackerras to CC list ]

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:03:01PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Matt Fleming (matt@...sole-pimps.org) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:46:00 -0800 (PST)
> > > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:39:36 -0500
> > > > 
> > > > > Thus it is not about global, as global is updated by normal means
> > > > > and will update the caches. atomic_t is updated via the ll/sc that
> > > > > ignores the cache and causes all this to break down. IOW... broken
> > > > > hardware ;)
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see how cache coherency can possibly work if the hardware
> > > > behaves this way.
> > > 
> > > Cache coherency is still maintained provided writes/reads both go
> > > through the cache ;-)
> > > 
> > > The problem is that for read-modify-write operations the arbitration
> > > logic that decides who "wins" and is allowed to actually perform the
> > > write, assuming two or more CPUs are competing for a single memory
> > > address, is not implemented in the cache controller, I think. I'm not a
> > > hardware engineer and I never understood how the arbitration logic
> > > worked but I'm guessing that's the reason that the ll/sc instructions
> > > bypass the cache.
> > > 
> > > Which is why the atomic_t functions worked out really well for that
> > > arch, such that any accesses to an atomic_t * had to go through the
> > > wrapper functions.
> 
> ???
> 
> What CPU family are we talking about here?  For cache coherent CPUs,
> cache coherence really is supposed to work, even for mixed atomic and
> non-atomic instructions to the same variable.
> 

I'm really curious to know which CPU families too. I've used git blame
to see where these lwz/stw instructions were added to powerpc, and it
points to:

commit 9f0cbea0d8cc47801b853d3c61d0e17475b0cc89
Author: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Date:   Sat Aug 11 10:15:30 2007 +1000

    [POWERPC] Implement atomic{, 64}_{read, write}() without volatile
    
    Instead, use asm() like all other atomic operations already do.
    
    Also use inline functions instead of macros; this actually
    improves code generation (some code becomes a little smaller,
    probably because of improved alias information -- just a few
    hundred bytes total on a default kernel build, nothing shocking).
    
    Signed-off-by: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>

So let's ping the relevant people to see if there was any reason for
making these atomic read/set operations different from other
architectures in the first place.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/