linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch] spindep: add cross cache lines checking

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: <1331014414.18835.254.camel@debian>
Date:	Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:13:34 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, tglx@...utronix.com,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, andi.kleen@...el.com, gcc-help@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] spindep: add cross cache lines checking

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 11:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 05 March 2012, Alex Shi wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: add cross cache lines checking
> > > 
> > > Modern x86 CPU won't hold whole memory bus when executing 
> > > 'lock' prefixed instructions unless the instruction 
> > > destination is crossing 2 cache lines. If so, it is disaster 
> > > of system performance.
> > > 
> > > Actually if the lock is not in the 'packed' structure, gcc 
> > > places it safely under x86 arch. But seems add this checking 
> > > in CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is harmless.
> > 
> > Have you tried making this a compile-time check using 
> > __alignof__? I would say that any spinlock in a packed data 
> > structure is basically a bug, even more so on most other 
> > architectures besides x86.

I have one concern and one questions here:
concern: maybe the lock is in a well designed 'packed' struct, and it is
safe for cross lines issue. but __alignof__ will return 1;

struct abc{
	raw_spinlock_t lock1;
	char 		a;
	char		b;
}__attribute__((packed));

Since the lock is the first object of struct, usually it is well placed.

question: I am a idiot on gcc, I tried some parameters of gcc " --param
l1-cache-line-size=1  -mno-align-double" and can not make a cross lines
variable without 'packed' structure, but I still don't find a grantee
why gcc can avoid the cross line variable if it's not in 'packed'
structure? 

> agreed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


--
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/