linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy 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:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 06:56:10 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 02:32:48PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:23:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > void bar(u64 *x)
> > > {
> > > 	*(volatile u64 *)x = 0xabcdef10abcdef10;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > then I get:
> > > 
> > > bar:
> > > 	mov	w1, 61200
> > > 	movk	w1, 0xabcd, lsl 16
> > > 	str	w1, [x0]
> > > 	str	w1, [x0, 4]
> > > 	ret
> > > 
> > > so I'm not sure that WRITE_ONCE would even help :/
> > 
> > Well, I can have the LWN article cite your email, then.  So thank you
> > very much!
> > 
> > Is generation of this code for a 64-bit volatile store considered a bug?
> 
> I consider it a bug for the volatile case, and the one compiler person I've
> spoken to also seems to reckon it's a bug, so hopefully it will be fixed.
> I'm led to believe it's an optimisation in the AArch64 backend of GCC.

Here is hoping for the fix!

> > Or does ARMv8 exclude the possibility of 64-bit MMIO registers?  And I
> > would guess that Thomas and Linus would ask a similar bugginess question
> > for normal stores.  ;-)
> 
> We use inline asm for MMIO, fwiw.

I should have remembered that, shouldn't I have?  ;-)

Is that also common practice across other embedded kernels these days?

							Thanx, Paul