netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv

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:	Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:43:54 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, csnook@...hat.com,
	dhowells@...hat.com, 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 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:01:54AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > #define order(x) asm volatile("" : "+m" (x))
> > 
> > There was something very similar discussed earlier in this thread,
> > with quite a bit of debate as to exactly what the "m" flag should
> > look like.  I suggested something similar named ACCESS_ONCE in the
> > context of RCU (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/11/664):
> > 
> >         #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
> > 
> > The nice thing about this is that it works for both loads and stores.
> > Not clear that order() above does this -- I get compiler errors when
> > I try something like "b = order(a)" or "order(a) = 1" using gcc 4.1.2.
> 
> Well, it serves a different purpose: While your ACCESS_ONCE() macro is
> an lvalue, the order() macro is a statement that can be used in place
> of the barrier() macro. order() is the most lightweight barrier as it
> only enforces ordering on a single variable in the compiler, but does
> not have any side-effects visible to other threads, like the cache
> line access in ACCESS_ONCE has.

ACCESS_ONCE() is indeed intended to be used when actually loading or
storing the variable.  That said, I must admit that it is not clear to me
why you would want to add an extra order() rather than ACCESS_ONCE()ing
one or both of the adjacent accesses to that same variable.

So, what am I missing?

						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