linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] documentation: explain memory barriers

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: <36155.1223535138@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:52:18 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: explain memory barriers

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:35:47 +1100, Nick Piggin said:
> On Thursday 09 October 2008 12:50, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:12:23 PDT, Randy Dunlap said:
> > > +
> > > +24: All memory barriers {e.g., barrier(), rmb(), wmb()} need a comment
> > > in the +    source code that explains the logic of what they are doing
> > > and why.
> >
> > "what they are doing" will almost always be "flush value to RAM" or
> > similar.
> 
> Memory barriers don't flush anything anywhere.

That's what I get for commenting on stuff when I'm into a 40-hour week by
Wednesday. :)

I was speaking of the generic programmer who does stuff like:

	x = 10; /* set x to 10 */ 

for "what they are doing".  You know the type. ;)

"flush value to RAM", "force memory barrier operation", and I think I've seen
a few kzalloc()'s that have "allocate zero'ed memory" on them. "what they are
doing" is usually not worth writing down, but being verbose for the *why*
is almost always good, especially for things like memory barriers that
almost nobody can get their brains wrapped around (how many flame-fests per
year do we have about "volatile"? ;)

>  /*
>   * If we don't do a wmb() here, the store to the RBFROBNIZ,
>   * above, might reach the device before the store X, below.
>   * 
>   * If that happens, then the XU293  card will get confused
>   * and wedge the hardware...
>   */
>   wmb();
> 
> If you don't comment like that, then how does the reader know that the wmb
> is not *also* supposed to order the store with any other of the limitless
> subsequent stores until the next memory ordering operation? Or any of the
> previous stores since the last one?

Even better (as I missed the "also supposed to know" case).  My general point
was that a concrete example would improve Randy's original patch by showing
what sort of things should be in the comment, and your correction pointed
out *why* a concrete example was needed. ;)

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped