linux-kernel - Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)

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: <20090527205515.GD6729@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 13:55:15 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add
	cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:02:17PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:52:44AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Catalin Marinas (catalin.marinas@....com) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 21:22 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > So, my questions is : is ARMv7 weak memory ordering model as weak as
> > > > > Alpha ?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not familiar with Alpha but ARM allows a weakly ordered memory
> > > > system (starting with ARMv6), it's up to the processor implementer to
> > > > decide how weak but within the ARM ARM restrictions (section A3.8.2).
> > > > 
> > > > I think the main difference with Alpha is that ARM doesn't do
> > > > speculative writes, only speculative reads. The write cannot become
> > > > visible to other observers in the same shareability domain before the
> > > > instruction occurs in program order. But because of the write buffer,
> > > > there is no guarantee on the order of two writes becoming visible to
> > > > other observers in the same shareability domain. The reads from normal
> > > > memory can happen speculatively (with a few restrictions)
> > > > 
> > > > Summarising from the ARM ARM, there are two terms used:
> > > > 
> > > >         Address dependency - an address dependency exists when the value
> > > >         returned by a read access is used to compute the virtual address
> > > >         of a subsequent read or write access.
> > > >         
> > > >         Control dependency - a control dependency exists when the data
> > > >         value returned by a read access is used to determine the
> > > >         condition code flags, and the values of the flags are used for
> > > >         condition code checking to determine the address of a subsequent
> > > >         read access.
> > > >         
> > > > The (simplified) memory ordering restrictions of two explicit accesses
> > > > (where multiple observers are present and in the same shareability
> > > > domain):
> > > > 
> > > >       * If there is an address dependency then the two memory accesses
> > > >         are observed in program order by any observer
> > > >       * If the value returned by a read access is used as data written
> > > >         by a subsequent write access, then the two memory accesses are
> > > >         observed in program order
> > > >       * It is impossible for an observer of a memory location to observe
> > > >         a write access to that memory location if that location would
> > > >         not be written to in a sequential execution of a program
> > > > 
> > > > Outside of these restrictions, the processor implementer can do whatever
> > > > it makes the CPU faster. To ensure the relative ordering between memory
> > > > accesses (either read or write), the software should have DMB
> > > > instructions.
> > > 
> > > Great, so no need to worry about smp_read_barrier_depend then, given
> > > there is an address dependency.
> > 
> > No need to worry from a CPU viewpoint, but still need to disable any
> > value-speculation optimizations that the compiler guys might indulge in.
> > 
> 
> Yes, that's ACCESS_ONCE() job's, right ? (cast to volatile * and
> dereference again to hide from compiler)

Yep!!!

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/