linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver

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: <1287417519.1998.1943.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:58:39 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
	Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@...com>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add OMAP hardware spinlock misc driver

On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 16:51 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 16:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:35 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> >> In any case, Linux's spinlock API (or more accurately, the ARM exclusive
> >> >> access instructions) relies upon hardware coherency support (a piece of
> >> >> hardware called an exclusive monitor) which isn't present on the M3 nor
> >> >> DSP processors.  So there's no way to ensure that updates from the M3
> >> >> and DSP are atomic wrt the A9 updates.
> >> >
> >> > Right, so the problem is that there simply is no way to do atomic memory
> >> > access from these auxiliary processing units wrt the main CPU? Seeing as
> >> > they operate on the same memory space, wouldn't it make sense to have
> >> > them cache-coherent and thus provide atomicy guarantees through that?
> >> 
> >> With cache coherency you may get atomicity of writes or reads but
> >> usually not atomic modifications.

Right, so you forgot the qualifying part of your stmt: on ARM.

> > Sure, but you can 'easily' extend your coherency protocols with support
> > for things like ll/sc (or larger transactions).
> >
> > Have ll bring the cacheline into exclusive state and tag it, then
> > anything that demotes the cacheline will clear the tag and make sc fail.
> 
> For the ll/sc operations on ARM (exclusive load/store) there is a
> per-CPU local exclusive monitor and a (virtual) global one. The global
> one may either be a separate piece of hardware or emulated via cache
> lines as you said. 

> But if you need synchronisation with a CPU (or DSP)
> like Cortex-M3 which doesn't have any built-in caches, you can only get
> atomic operations on the main processor (A9) but not on the M3 (as you
> can't have a cache line in exclusive state on the M3).

Right, and I take it that modifying the M3 to participate in the full
coherency/exclusive monitor thing would have been more work.

> The M3 may have a local exclusive monitor (like the main CPU) but it
> isn't cleared by memory accesses from the main CPU.

Sounds like asking for trouble if you ask me ;-)



--
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/