linux-kernel - Re: cmpxchg and x86 flags output

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:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:00:11 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: cmpxchg and x86 flags output

On June 21, 2016 2:06:20 AM PDT, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, that sounds promising.  I wonder how David's model, using
>> intrinsics (do we have enough intrinsics to actually be able to do
>this
>> "correctly"?), compare to using the flags output from assembly.
>
>There is an advantage to using the intriniscs on arches with explicit
>barriers.  On powerpc64, for example, the compiler can move the release
>memory
>barrier earlier to push register-only instructions between the barrier
>and the
>lwarx.  This would allow the memory barrier to be executed concurrently
>with
>those instructions.
>
>The compiler could also move the acquire memory barrier later, pulling
>register-only instructions between the stwcx and that barrier, though I
>don't
>see any advantage to doing so.
>
>Whereas if the release barrier is in the same asm block as the lwarx,
>the
>compiler cannot do anything with it.
>
>
>Another advantage is that the compiler can switch between instruction
>variants
>automatically, allowing us to get rid of the size-based switch
>statements for
>things like cmpxchg().
>
>
>However, there's probably not a great deal of difference to be had if
>the
>inline asm codes the appropriate instruction in each case for something
>like
>x86*.  The emitted code ought to look the same.  The second biggest win
>for
>the intriniscs, I think, is the ability to ask the CMPXCHG instruction
>whether
>it actually did anything rather than comparing the result.  I added two
>variants, one that only returned the yes/no and one that passed back
>the value
>as well as the yes/no.
>
>David

The question for me is for things like lock patching that we do on x86...
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.