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  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:	Wed,  5 Dec 2007 13:08:31 -0200
From:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...e.hu, ehabkost@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
	avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	hpa@...or.com, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] unify smp parts of system.h

The memory barrier parts of system.h are not very different between
i386 and x86_64, the main difference being the availability of
instructions, which we handle with the use of ifdefs.

They are consolidated in system.h file, and then removed from
the arch-specific headers.

Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
---
 include/asm-x86/system.h    |  105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/asm-x86/system_32.h |   99 ----------------------------------------
 include/asm-x86/system_64.h |   25 ----------
 3 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system.h
@@ -202,4 +202,109 @@ extern void free_init_pages(char *what, 
 
 void default_idle(void);
 
+/*
+ * Force strict CPU ordering.
+ * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
+ * to devices.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
+/*
+ * For now, "wmb()" doesn't actually do anything, as all
+ * Intel CPU's follow what Intel calls a *Processor Order*,
+ * in which all writes are seen in the program order even
+ * outside the CPU.
+ *
+ * I expect future Intel CPU's to have a weaker ordering,
+ * but I'd also expect them to finally get their act together
+ * and add some real memory barriers if so.
+ *
+ * Some non intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a
+ * nop for these.
+ */
+#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
+#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
+#else
+#define mb() 	asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
+#define rmb()	asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
+#define wmb()	asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
+#endif
+
+/**
+ * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
+ * depend on.
+ *
+ * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
+ * over this barrier.  All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
+ * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
+ * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
+ * any of the preceding reads.  This primitive is much lighter weight than
+ * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
+ * rmb().
+ *
+ * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
+ * and the compiler.
+ *
+ * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
+ * not even by data dependencies.  See the documentation for
+ * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
+ *
+ * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
+ * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	b = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	p = &b;				q = p;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					d = *q;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
+ * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends().  However,
+ * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
+ *
+ * <programlisting>
+ *	CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ *	a = 2;
+ *	memory_barrier();
+ *	b = 3;				y = b;
+ *					read_barrier_depends();
+ *					x = a;
+ * </programlisting>
+ *
+ * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
+ * the read of "a" and the read of "b".  Therefore, on some CPUs, such
+ * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0.  Use rmb()
+ * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
+ **/
+
+#define read_barrier_depends()	do { } while (0)
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define smp_mb()	mb()
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
+# define smp_rmb()	rmb()
+#else
+# define smp_rmb()	barrier()
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
+# define smp_wmb() 	wmb()
+#else
+# define smp_wmb()	barrier()
+#endif
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	read_barrier_depends()
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
+#else
+#define smp_mb()	barrier()
+#define smp_rmb()	barrier()
+#define smp_wmb()	barrier()
+#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	do { } while (0)
+#define set_mb(var, value) do { var = value; barrier(); } while (0)
+#endif
+
+
 #endif
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_32.h
@@ -36,105 +36,6 @@ extern struct task_struct * FASTCALL(__s
 #endif	/* __KERNEL__ */
 
 
-/*
- * Force strict CPU ordering.
- * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
- * to devices.
- *
- * For now, "wmb()" doesn't actually do anything, as all
- * Intel CPU's follow what Intel calls a *Processor Order*,
- * in which all writes are seen in the program order even
- * outside the CPU.
- *
- * I expect future Intel CPU's to have a weaker ordering,
- * but I'd also expect them to finally get their act together
- * and add some real memory barriers if so.
- *
- * Some non intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a
- * nop for these.
- */
- 
-
-#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
-#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
-#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM)
-
-/**
- * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
- * depend on.
- *
- * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
- * over this barrier.  All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
- * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
- * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
- * any of the preceding reads.  This primitive is much lighter weight than
- * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
- * rmb().
- *
- * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
- * and the compiler.
- *
- * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
- * not even by data dependencies.  See the documentation for
- * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
- *
- * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
- * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
- *
- * <programlisting>
- *	CPU 0				CPU 1
- *
- *	b = 2;
- *	memory_barrier();
- *	p = &b;				q = p;
- *					read_barrier_depends();
- *					d = *q;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
- * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends().  However,
- * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
- *
- * <programlisting>
- *	CPU 0				CPU 1
- *
- *	a = 2;
- *	memory_barrier();
- *	b = 3;				y = b;
- *					read_barrier_depends();
- *					x = a;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
- * the read of "a" and the read of "b".  Therefore, on some CPUs, such
- * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0.  Use rmb()
- * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
- **/
-
-#define read_barrier_depends()	do { } while(0)
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-#define smp_mb()	mb()
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
-# define smp_rmb()	rmb()
-#else
-# define smp_rmb()	barrier()
-#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE
-# define smp_wmb() 	wmb()
-#else
-# define smp_wmb()	barrier()
-#endif
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	read_barrier_depends()
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
-#else
-#define smp_mb()	barrier()
-#define smp_rmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_wmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	do { } while(0)
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { var = value; barrier(); } while (0)
-#endif
-
 #include <linux/irqflags.h>
 
 /*
Index: linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-x86.orig/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
+++ linux-2.6-x86/include/asm-x86/system_64.h
@@ -41,31 +41,6 @@
     
 #endif	/* __KERNEL__ */
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-#define smp_mb()	mb()
-#define smp_rmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_wmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	do {} while(0)
-#else
-#define smp_mb()	barrier()
-#define smp_rmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_wmb()	barrier()
-#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	do {} while(0)
-#endif
-
-    
-/*
- * Force strict CPU ordering.
- * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
- * to devices.
- */
-#define mb() 	asm volatile("mfence":::"memory")
-#define rmb()	asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
-#define wmb()	asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
-
-#define read_barrier_depends()	do {} while(0)
-#define set_mb(var, value) do { (void) xchg(&var, value); } while (0)
-
 #include <linux/irqflags.h>
 
 #endif
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists