linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across 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]

Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:56:41 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <piggin@...erone.com.au>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
CC:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <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,
	segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
 architectures

Satyam Sharma wrote:

>
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
>>Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It is very obvious. msleep calls schedule() (ie. sleeps), which is
>>>>always a barrier.
>>>>
>>>Probably you didn't mean that, but no, schedule() is not barrier because
>>>it sleeps. It's a barrier because it's invisible.
>>>
>>Where did I say it is a barrier because it sleeps?
>>
>
>Just below. What you wrote:
>
>
>>It is always a barrier because, at the lowest level, schedule() (and thus
>>anything that sleeps) is defined to always be a barrier.
>>
>
>"It is always a barrier because, at the lowest level, anything that sleeps
>is defined to always be a barrier".
>

... because it must call schedule and schedule is a barrier.


>>Regardless of
>>whatever obscure means the compiler might need to infer the barrier.
>>
>>In other words, you can ignore those obscure details because schedule() is
>>always going to have an explicit barrier in it.
>>
>
>I didn't quite understand what you said here, so I'll tell what I think:
>
>* foo() is a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() is invisible to
>  the compiler at a callsite.
>
>* foo() is also a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() includes
>  a barrier, and it is inlined at the callsite.
>
>If the above is wrong, or if there's something else at play as well,
>do let me know.
>

Right.


>>>>The "unobvious" thing is that you wanted to know how the compiler knows
>>>>a function is a barrier -- answer is that if it does not *know* it is not
>>>>a barrier, it must assume it is a barrier.
>>>>
>>>True, that's clearly what happens here. But are you're definitely joking
>>>that this is "obvious" in terms of code-clarity, right?
>>>
>>No. If you accept that barrier() is implemented correctly, and you know
>>that sleeping is defined to be a barrier,
>>
>
>Curiously, that's the second time you've said "sleeping is defined to
>be a (compiler) barrier".
>

_In Linux,_ sleeping is defined to be a compiler barrier.

>How does the compiler even know if foo() is
>a function that "sleeps"? Do compilers have some notion of "sleeping"
>to ensure they automatically assume a compiler barrier whenever such
>a function is called? Or are you saying that the compiler can see the
>barrier() inside said function ... nopes, you're saying quite the
>opposite below.
>

You're getting too worried about the compiler implementation. Start
by assuming that it does work ;)


>>then its perfectly clear. You
>>don't have to know how the compiler "knows" that some function contains
>>a barrier.
>>
>
>I think I do, why not? Would appreciate if you could elaborate on this.
>

If a function is not completely visible to the compiler (so it can't
determine whether a barrier could be in it or not), then it must always
assume it will contain a barrier so it always does the right thing.
-
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/