linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

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]

Date:	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:48:13 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, will.newton@...il.com, jbaron@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vapier@...too.org, cmetcalf@...era.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

* Segher Boessenkool (segher@...nel.crashing.org) wrote:
> >> What CPU family are we talking about here?  For cache coherent CPUs,
> >> cache coherence really is supposed to work, even for mixed atomic and
> >> non-atomic instructions to the same variable.
> >
> > I'm really curious to know which CPU families too. I've used git blame
> > to see where these lwz/stw instructions were added to powerpc, and it
> > points to:
> >
> > commit 9f0cbea0d8cc47801b853d3c61d0e17475b0cc89
> 
> > So let's ping the relevant people to see if there was any reason for
> > making these atomic read/set operations different from other
> > architectures in the first place.
> 
> lwz is a simple 32-bit load.  On PowerPC, such a load is guaranteed
> to be atomic (except some unaligned cases).  stw is similar, for stores.
> These are the normal insns, not ll/sc or anything.
> 
> At the time, volatile tricks were used to make the accesses atomic; this
> patch changed that.  Result is (or should be!) better code generation.
> 
> Is there a problem with it?

It seems fine then. It seems to be my confusion to think that Matt
referred to PowerPC in his statement. It's probably an unrelated
architecture.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/