linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v3b)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100112165413.GA6812@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:54:13 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
	barrier (v3b)

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:39AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:38 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > > The UP-kernel case is handled by the #ifdef in sys_membarrier(), though
> > > with a bit larger code footprint than the embedded guys would probably
> > > prefer.  (Or is the compiler smart enough to omit these function given no
> > > calls to them?  If not, recommend putting them under CONFIG_SMP #ifdef.)
> > 
> > Hrm, that's a bit odd. I agree that UP systems could simply return
> > -ENOSYS for sys_membarrier, but then I wonder how userland could
> > distinguish between:
> > 
> > - an old kernel not supporting sys_membarrier()
> >   -> in this case we need to use the smp_mb() fallback on the read-side
> >      and in synchronize_rcu().
> > - a recent kernel supporting sys_membarrier(), CONFIG_SMP
> >   -> can use the barrier() on read-side, call sys_membarrier upon
> >      update.
> > - a recent kernel supporting sys_membarrier, !CONFIG_SMP
> >   -> calls to sys_membarrier() are not required, nor is barrier().
> > 
> > Or maybe we just postpone the userland smp_mb() question to another
> > thread. This will eventually need to be addressed anyway. Maybe with a
> > vgetmaxcpu() vsyscall.
> 
> I think Paul means to wrap all your other functions under the #ifdef.
> What you have for sys_membarrier() is fine (just return 0 on UP) but you
> also need to wrap the helper function above it under #ifdef CONFIG_SMP.
> Don't rely on the compiler to optimize them out. If anything, you'll
> probably get a bunch of warnings about static functions unused.

Yes -- much clearer statement of what I was getting at.  ;-)

							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/