linux-kernel - Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc

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:	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:19:55 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 08:07:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:04:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Before C/C++11, the closest thing to such a prohibition is use of
> > > volatile, for example, ACCESS_ONCE().  Even in C/C++11, you have to
> > > use atomics to get anything resembing this prohibition.
> > > 
> > > If you just use normal variables, the compiler is within its rights
> > > to transform something like the following:
> > > 
> > > 	if (a)
> > > 		b = 1;
> > > 	else
> > > 		b = 42;
> > > 
> > > Into:
> > > 
> > > 	b = 42;
> > > 	if (a)
> > > 		b = 1;
> > > 
> > > Many other similar transformations are permitted.  Some are used to all
> > > vector instructions to be used -- the compiler can do a write with an
> > > overly wide vector instruction, then clean up the clobbered variables
> > > later, if it wishes.  Again, if the variables are not marked volatile,
> > > or, in C/C++11, atomic.
> > 
> > While I've heard you tell this story before, my mind keeps boggling how
> > we've been able to use shared memory at all, all these years.
> > 
> > It seems to me stuff should have broken left, right and center if
> > compilers were really aggressive about this.
> 
> Sometimes having stupid compilers is a good thing.  But they really are
> getting more aggressive.

But surely we cannot go mark all data structures lodged in shared memory
as volatile, that's insane.

I'm sure you're quite worried about this as well. Suppose we have:

struct foo {
	unsigned long value;
	void *ptr;
	unsigned long value1;
};

And our ptr member is RCU managed. Then while the assignment using:
rcu_assign_ptr() will use the volatile cast, what stops the compiler
from wrecking ptr while writing either of the value* members and
'fixing' her up after?

This is a completely untenable position.

How do the C/C++ people propose to deal with this?
--
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/