netdev - Re: [PATCH 9/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on ia64

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:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:51:11 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.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 9/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on ia64

Luck, Tony wrote:
>> +#define atomic_read(v)		(*(volatile __s32 *)&(v)->counter)
>> +#define atomic64_read(v)	(*(volatile __s64 *)&(v)->counter)
>>
>>  #define atomic_set(v,i)		(((v)->counter) = (i))
>>  #define atomic64_set(v,i)	(((v)->counter) = (i))
> 
> 
> Losing the volatile from the "set" variants definitely changes
> the code generated.  Before the patch gcc would give us:
> 
> 	st4.rel [r37]=r9
> 
> after
> 	st4 [r37]=r9
> 
> It is unclear whether anyone relies on (or even whether they should
> rely on) the release semantics that are provided by the current
> version of atomic.h.  But making this change would require an
> audit of all the uses of atomic_set() to find an answer.
> 
> There is a more worrying difference in the generated code (this
> from the ancient and venerable gcc 3.4.6 that is on my build
> machine).   In rwsem_down_failed_common I see this change (after
> disassembling vmlinux, I used sed to zap the low 32-bits of addresses
> to make the diff manageable ... that's why the addresses all end
> in xxxxxxxx):
> 
> 712868,712873c712913,712921
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 adds r16=-1,r30
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:     [MII]       ld8.acq r33=[r32]
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 nop.i 0x0;;
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 add r42=r33,r16
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:     [MMI]       mov.m ar.ccv=r33;;
> < a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 cmpxchg8.acq r34=[r32],r42,ar.ccv
> ---
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 adds r16=-1,r31
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:     [MMI]       ld4.acq r14=[r32];;
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 nop.m 0x0
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 sxt4 r34=r14
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:     [MMI]       nop.m 0x0;;
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 nop.m 0x0
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 add r15=r34,r16
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:     [MMI]       mov.m ar.ccv=r34;;
>> a0000001xxxxxxxx:                 cmpxchg8.acq r42=[r32],r15,ar.ccv
> 
> This code is probably from the rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) macro
> which is cpp'd to atomic64_add_return().  It looks really bad that the new
> code reads a 32-bit value and sign extends it rather than reading a 64-bit
> value (but I'm perplexed as to why this patch provoked this change in the
> generated code).
> 
> -Tony

That's distressing.  I'm about to resubmit with a volatile cast in 
atomic_set as well, since people expect that behavior and I've been 
shown a legitimate case where it could matter.  Does the assembly look 
right with that cast in atomic_set() as well?

	-- Chris
-
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