linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

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]

Message-Id: <914eee40a2967ca153c28da4705722c4@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:35:27 +0200
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	schwidefsky@...ibm.com
Cc:	wjiang@...ilience.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, zlynx@....org, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

>>> Yes, though I would use "=m" on the output list and "m" on the input
>>> list. The reason is that I've seen gcc fall on its face with an ICE 
>>> on
>>> s390 due to "+m". The explanation I've got from our compiler people 
>>> was
>>> quite esoteric, as far as I remember gcc splits "+m" to an input
>>> operand
>>> and an output operand. Now it can happen that the compiler chooses 
>>> two
>>> different registers to access the same memory location. "+m" requires
>>> that the two memory references are identical which causes the ICE if
>>> they are not.
>>
>> The problem is very nicely described here, last paragraph:
>> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg01816.html>
>>
>> It's not a problem anymore in (very) recent GCC, although
>> that of course won't help you in the kernel (yet).
>
> So you are saying that gcc 3.x still has this problem ?

Yes.  A warning ("read-write constraint does not allow a register")
was added for GCC-3.4, but the fix/workaround is more recent
(4.2 I believe, perhaps it was backported to the 4.1 branch).

>>> I do not know if the current compilers still do this. Has
>>> anyone else seen this happen ?
>>
>> In recent GCC, it's actually documented:
>>
>> 	 The ordinary output operands must be write-only; GCC will assume 
>> that
>> 	the values in these operands before the instruction are dead and need
>> 	not be generated.  Extended asm supports input-output or read-write
>> 	operands.  Use the constraint character `+' to indicate such an 
>> operand
>> 	and list it with the output operands.  You should only use read-write
>> 	operands when the constraints for the operand (or the operand in 
>> which
>> 	only some of the bits are to be changed) allow a register.
>>
>> Note that last line.
>
> I see, thanks for the info.

My pleasure.


Segher

-
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/