linux-kernel - volatile and atomic_t/spinlock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070605114813.GA17048@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:48:13 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: volatile and atomic_t/spinlock_t

I'm just wondering why we have an inconsistency between several archs when
it comes to the definitions of atomic_t, atomic64_t, spinlock_t and their
accessors. Currently we have on most architectures something like

typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;

except for i386/x86_64 which has

typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;

but then again we have (including x86_64)

typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;

In addition we have

#define atomic_read(v)		((v)->counter)
#define atomic64_read(v)	((v)->counter)

So something like

(1)	while (atomic_read(&v));

May or may not work. Yes, I know it should be

(2)	while (atomic_read(&v))
		cpu_relax();

I'm just wondering about the inconsistency between 32 and 64 bit here and if
(1) is supposed to work or not.

When it comes to spinlock_t we have (on i386):

typedef struct {
	unsigned int slock;
} raw_spinlock_t;

and

static inline int __raw_spin_is_locked(raw_spinlock_t *x)
{
	return *(volatile signed char *)(&(x)->slock) <= 0;
}

Most other architectures have something like this

typedef struct {
	volatile unsigned int slock;
} raw_spinlock_t;

and

#define __raw_spin_is_locked(x)	((x)->slock != 0)

So is

	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v));

supposed to work? Or should that be 

	while (__raw_spin_is_locked(&v))
		cpu_relax();

as well and all the volatiles can/should go away?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/