linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 2.6.27-rc4 released

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: <1219327799.8651.134.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:09:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 
	2.6.27-rc4	released

On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 23:37 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2008 22:26, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote:
> 
> > I used the smp_wmb() functions.  I noted a couple of things.  a) some of
> > these macros just emit __asm__ __volatile__ into the code so why not just
> > say "volatile" to begin with
> 
> It is not the same as volatile type. What it does is tell the compiler
> to clobber all registers or temporaries. This something pretty well
> defined and hard to get wrong compared to volatile type.

Right, asm volatile () means that the asm may not be discarted. Very
different from the volatile type qualifier.

> > b) smp_wmb() in some cases worked and in 
> > other cases jut optimized away the global reference.
> 
> Linux barriers aren't going to force a load to be emitted, if it can be
> optimized away. If it optimized away a store, then I'd like to see a
> test case.

Not sure - I think all barrier clobber the full register and memory set.
So if you access a variable after a barrier it will have to issue a
load.

Are we talking about different things?

> > c) I can go back and 
> > break the code again by inserting them and building broken assembler d) I
> > ave been doing hardware and software design since the early 1980;s, I
> > invented SMP affinity scheduling, and yes, I understand barriers and this
> > concept of instruction score-boarding and optimization very well -- its
> > not an excuse for a busted C compiler.
> 
> The point is not whether it is possible to work with volatile types, but
> that we tend not to use them in Linux to deal with concurrency.
> 
> Also, barriers seem to work fine for everybody else, so I think it is
> likely you either aren't using them correctly, or have other bugs in the
> code.

Well, there is of course the third option, which is what Jeff claims,
that gcc is broken. But in that case we should have more problems
elsewhere too.


--
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/