linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 04/24] xen/arm: sync

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: <20120801143551.GI7227@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:35:51 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@....org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 04/24] xen/arm: sync_bitops

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 17:37 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 04:33:46PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > sync_bitops functions are equivalent to the SMP implementation of the
> > > original functions, independently from CONFIG_SMP being defined.
> > 
> > So why can't the code be changed to use that? Is it that
> > the _set_bit, _clear_bit, etc are not available with !CONFIG_SMP?
> 
> _set_bit etc are not SMP safe if !CONFIG_SMP. But under Xen you might be
> communicating with a completely external entity who might be on another
> CPU (e.g. two uniprocessor guests communicating via event channels and
> grant tables). So we need a variant of the bit ops which are SMP safe
> even on a UP kernel.
> 
> The users are common code and the sync_foo vs foo distinction matters on
> some platforms (e.g. x86 where a UP kernel would omit the LOCK prefix
> for the normal ones).

OK, that makes sense. Stefano can you include that comment in the git
commit description and in the sync_bitops.h file please?
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/include/asm/sync_bitops.h |   17 +++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/sync_bitops.h
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/sync_bitops.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/sync_bitops.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..d975092903
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/sync_bitops.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> > > +#ifndef __ASM_SYNC_BITOPS_H__
> > > +#define __ASM_SYNC_BITOPS_H__
> > > +
> > > +#include <asm/bitops.h>
> > > +#include <asm/system.h>
> > > +
> > > +#define sync_set_bit(nr, p)		_set_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_clear_bit(nr, p)		_clear_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_change_bit(nr, p)		_change_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_test_and_set_bit(nr, p)	_test_and_set_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_test_and_clear_bit(nr, p)	_test_and_clear_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_test_and_change_bit(nr, p)	_test_and_change_bit(nr, p)
> > > +#define sync_test_bit(nr, addr)		test_bit(nr, addr)
> > > +#define sync_cmpxchg			cmpxchg
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +#endif
> > > -- 
> > > 1.7.2.5
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Xen-devel mailing list
> > > Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
> > > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 
--
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/