netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

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:	Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:45:31 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	zlynx@....org, rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:13:52PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:14:35PM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> >>                                If you're depending on volatile writes 
> >>being visible to other CPUs, you're screwed either way, because the CPU 
> >>can hold that data in cache as long as it wants before it writes it to 
> >>memory.  When this finally does happen, it will happen atomically, which 
> >>is all that atomic_set guarantees.  If you need to guarantee that the 
> >>value is written to memory at a particular time in your execution 
> >>sequence, you either have to read it from memory to force the compiler to 
> >>store it first (and a volatile cast in atomic_read will suffice for this) 
> >>or you have to use LOCK_PREFIX instructions which will invalidate remote 
> >>cache lines containing the same variable.  This patch doesn't change 
> >>either of these cases.
> >
> >The case that it -can- change is interactions with interrupt handlers.
> >And NMI/SMI handlers, for that matter.
> 
> You have a point here, but only if you can guarantee that the interrupt 
> handler is running on a processor sharing the cache that has the 
> not-yet-written volatile value.  That implies a strictly non-SMP 
> architecture.  At the moment, none of those have volatile in their 
> declaration of atomic_t, so this patch can't break any of them.

This can also happen when using per-CPU variables.  And there are a
number of per-CPU variables that are either atomic themselves or are
structures containing atomic fields.

							Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html