linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/9] net: xfrm: use this_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B7086@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:15:50 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Shan Wei" <shanwei88@...il.com>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	<steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"NetDev" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"Kernel-Maillist" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/9] net: xfrm: use this_cpu_ptr per-cpu helper

> this_cpu_read
> |-----_this_cpu_generic_read
> 
> #define _this_cpu_generic_read(pcp)                                     \
> ({      typeof(pcp) ret__;                                              \
>         preempt_disable();                                              \
>         ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp));                                  \
>         preempt_enable();                                               \
>         ret__;                                                          \
> })
> 
> 
> this_cpu_read operations locate per-cpu variable with preemption safe， not
> disable interrupts. why is it atomic vs interrupts?

Hmmm...  what effect do those preemt_dis/enable() actually have?
Since a pre-empt can happen either side of them, the value
the caller sees can be for the wrong cpu anyway.

The only time I could see them being necessary is if
*this_cpu_ptr() itself needs mutex protection in order to
function correctly - and that is likely to be port specific.
On i386/amd64 where (I guess) it is an access offset by fs/gs
this isn't necessary and just wastes cpu cycles.

If the caller cares which cpu the value comes from (eg to
increment a counter) then the caller would need to disable
pre-emption across the whole operation.

	David