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 20:51:31 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	wjiang@...ilience.com, rpjday@...dspring.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	horms@...ge.net.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha

>> The compiler is within its rights to read a 32-bit quantity 16 bits at
>> at time, even on a 32-bit machine.  I would be glad to help pummel any
>> compiler writer that pulls such a dirty trick, but the C standard 
>> really
>> does permit this.
>
> Yes, but we don't write code for these compilers.  There are countless 
> pieces of kernel code which would break in this condition, and there 
> doesn't seem to be any interest in fixing this.

"Other things are broken too".  Great argument :-)

> Sequence points enforce read-after-write ordering, not 
> write-after-write.

Sequence points order *all* side effects; sequence points exist in the
domain of the abstract sequential model of the C language only.  The
compiler translates that to machine code that is equivalent to that C
code under the "as-if" rule; but this is still in that abstract model,
which doesn't include things such as SMP, visibility by I/O devices,
store queues, etc. etc.

> We flush writes with reads for MMIO because of this effect as well as 
> the CPU/bus effects.

You cannot flush all MMIO writes with reads; this is a PCI-specific
thing.  And even then, you need more than just the read itself: you
have to make sure the read completed and returned data.

>> In short, please retain atomic_set()'s volatility, especially on those
>> architectures that declared the atomic_t's counter to be volatile.
>
> Like i386 and x86_64?  These used to have volatile in the atomic_t 
> declaration.  We removed it, and the sky did not fall.

And this proves what?  Lots of stuff "works" by accident.


Segher

-
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