linux-kernel - Re: [patch 04/41] cpu ops: Core piece for generic atomic per cpu operations

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:	Thu, 29 May 2008 23:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 04/41] cpu ops: Core piece for generic atomic per cpu
 operations

On Thu, 29 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > area. It requies disabling of interrupts etc.
> 
> No it doesn't.  Look:
> 
> static inline void local_inc(local_t *l)
> {
> 	asm volatile(_ASM_INC "%0"
> 		     : "+m" (l->a.counter));
> }
> 
> > Its not atomic (wrt 
> > interrupts) because of that.
> >
> 
> Yes it is.

No its not! In order to increment a per cpu value you need to calculate 
the per cpu pointer address in the current per cpu segment. local_t 
cannot do that in an atomic (wrt interrupt/preempt fashion) fashion. cpu 
ops can use a segment prefix and thus the insructions can calculate the 
per cpu adress and perform the atomic inc without disabling preempt or 
interrupts.

local_t is only useful when you disable interrupt or premption otherwise. 
But then you could also use a regular increment.

> > But then its related to percpu operations and relies extensively on the 
> > various percpu.h files in asm-generic and asm-arch and include/linux
> 
> Well that should be fixed.  We should never have mixed the
> alloc_percpu() and DEFINE_PER_CPU things inthe same header.  They're
> different.

With cpu_alloc they are the same. They allocate from the same per cpu 
area.

--
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/