linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86: improved memory barrier implementation

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: <20070928170719.2f617a7a@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:07:19 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: improved memory barrier implementation

> The only alternative is to assume a weak memory model, and add the required
> barriers to spin_unlock -- something that has been explicitly avoided, but

We have the barriers in spin_unlock already for Pentium Pro and IDT
Winchip systems. The Winchip explicitly supports out of order store (and
was about 10-20% faster with it set this way), the PPro has some annoying
little store ordering bugs which is why we xchgb out of spin_unlock in
those cases.

> The complaint that broken old ppros get more broken seems to be bogus as well:
> wmb on i386 never catered to the old ppro to start with. The errata seem to

There are only a couple of awkward cases with the PPro and we carefully
work around them. The other half of the work is the flush_write_buffers.

> Buggy ppros: I have no interest in, given the vague errata and apparently
> unfixable problems with lockless code; anybody is welcome to try adding
> whatever they like to help them work, but again please don't confuse that
> with having anything to do with this patch...

PPro was fixed, made to work and brutally tested on quad PPro. There are
cases that wouldn't work (PPro + AGP which never happens) and there are
cases that need specific handling (PPro + Voodoo card and some other 3D
bits) which are handled currently in the X server. The rest is fine.

> Winchip: can any of these CPUs with ooostores do SMP? If not, then smp_wmb
> can also be a simple barrier on i386 too.

The IDT Winchip can do SMP apparently. Nobody has ever seen an SMP
winchip board so I don't think it matters and even if one existed we
wouldn't support it anyway

However 
- You've not shown the patch has any performance gain
- You've probably broken Pentium Pro
- and for modern processors its still not remotely clear your patch is
correct because of NT stores.

So NAK

Alan
-
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/