| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <11968673473254-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>
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