linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/locking 4/4] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Document ACCESS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:10:50 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/locking 4/4] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
 Document ACCESS_ONCE()


* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:50:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > + (*) The compiler is within its rights to reload a variable, for example,
> > > > +     in cases where high register pressure prevents the compiler from
> > > > +     keeping all data of interest in registers.  The compiler might
> > > > +     therefore optimize the variable tmp out of our previous example:
> > > > +
> > > > +	while (tmp = a)
> > > > +		do_something_with(tmp);
> > > > +
> > > > +     This could result in the following code, which is perfectly safe in
> > > > +     single-threaded code, but can be fatal in concurrent code:
> > > > +
> > > > +	while (a)
> > > > +		do_something_with(a);
> > > > +
> > > > +     For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
> > > > +     passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
> > > > +     a was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
> > > > +     the call to do_something_with().
> > > 
> > > Nit: I guess references to variable names such as 'a' should be quoted 
> > > (same for 'tmp', 'b', etc):
> > > 
> > >         For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
> > >         passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
> > >         'a' was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
> > >         the call to do_something_with().
> > > 
> > > which makes reading it less ambiguous and more fluid IMO. This 
> > > observation applies to the whole document as 'a' is used in many 
> > > places.
> > 
> > Good point, fixed.
> 
> Which reminds me -- the thing that makes me most nervous about 
> prohibiting speculative stores is the bit about having to anticipate 
> all compiler optimizations that might get rid of the needed 
> conditionals.
> 
> Thoughts?

As long as current compiler versions behave I don't the potential of 
future problems is a problem that can (or should) be solved via 
documentation - there will always be a colorful tension between 
specification and reality, both at the hardware, the code and the 
compiler level ;-)

It doesn't hurt to outline our expectations in any case, agreed?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/