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 07:32:55 -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 09:24:42AM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
> 
> Purify volatile use for atomic[64]_t on alpha.

Why not the same access-once semantics for atomic_set() as
for atomic_read()?  As this patch stands, it might introduce
architecture-specific compiler-induced bugs due to the fact that
atomic_set() used to imply volatile behavior but no longer does.

See below for one approach to fixing this.

> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
> 
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc2-orig/include/asm-alpha/atomic.h	2007-07-08 19:32:17.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc2/include/asm-alpha/atomic.h	2007-08-09 09:19:00.000000000 -0400
> @@ -14,18 +14,22 @@
> 
> 
>  /*
> - * Counter is volatile to make sure gcc doesn't try to be clever
> - * and move things around on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address
> - * the user gave us, not some alias that contains the same information.
> + * Make sure gcc doesn't try to be clever and move things around
> + * on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
> + * not some alias that contains the same information.
>   */
> -typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
> -typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
> +typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
> +typedef struct { long counter; } atomic64_t;
> 
>  #define ATOMIC_INIT(i)		( (atomic_t) { (i) } )
>  #define ATOMIC64_INIT(i)	( (atomic64_t) { (i) } )
> 
> -#define atomic_read(v)		((v)->counter + 0)
> -#define atomic64_read(v)	((v)->counter + 0)
> +/*
> + * Casting to volatile here minimizes the need for barriers,
> + * without having to declare the type itself as volatile.
> + */
> +#define atomic_read(v)		(*(volatile int *)&(v)->counter + 0)
> +#define atomic64_read(v)	(*(volatile long *)&(v)->counter + 0)
> 
>  #define atomic_set(v,i)		((v)->counter = (i))
>  #define atomic64_set(v,i)	((v)->counter = (i))

How about:

#define atomic_set(v,i)		((*(volatile int *)&(v)->counter) = (i))
#define atomic64_set(v,i)	((*(volatile long *)&(v)->counter) = (i))

						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
-
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