linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order

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:	Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] page-table walkers vs memory order

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:51 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > I do love the status quo, but an audit would be welcome.  When
> > it comes to patches, personally I tend to prefer ACCESS_ONCE() and
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() and accompanying comments to be hidden away
> > in the underlying macros or inlines where reasonable, rather than
> > repeated all over; but I may have my priorities wrong on that.

I notice from that old radix_tree thread you pointed to in the previous
mail (for which many thanks: lots of meat to digest in there) that this
is also Linus's preference.

> > 
> > 
> Yeah, I was being lazy, and I totally forgot to actually look at the
> alpha code.
> 
> How about we do a generic (cribbed from rcu_dereference):
> 
> #define page_table_deref(p)					\
> ({								\
> 	typeof(*p) *______p = (typeof(*p) __force *)ACCESS_ONCE(p);\
> 	smp_read_barrier_depends();				\
> 	((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(______p));		\
> })
> 
> and use that all over to dereference page-tables. That way all this
> lives in one place. Granted, I'll have to go edit all arch code, but I
> seem to be doing that on a frequent basis anyway :/

If you're convinced that we now have (or are in danger of growing)
a number of places which need this safety, yes, I suppose so.

Personally, I'd have gone for just adding the relatively-understandable
ACCESS_ONCEs in all the arch/*/include/asm macros (which you're going to
visit to make the above change), and leave the smp_read_barrier_depends()
entirely in Alpha - one level of indirection less for the reader.
But that's just me, you're the one proposing to do the work, and
you may have very good reason for the above.

I'm unfamiliar with what value the __force __kernel annotations add.
But I am interested to notice that you are only 6/9ths as insane as
Paul: any chance of helping global underscore availability by not
hoarding quite so many in there? 

Hugh
--
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/