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:	Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:30:17 +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 Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 02:28:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This is a completely untenable position.
> 
> Indeed it is!
> 
> C/C++ never was intended to be used for parallel programming, 

And yet pretty much all kernels ever written for SMP systems are written
in it; what drugs are those people smoking?

Furthermore there's a gazillion parallel userspace programs.

> and this is
> but one of the problems that can arise when we nevertheless use it for
> parallel programming.  As compilers get smarter (for some definition of
> "smarter") and as more systems have special-purpose hardware (such as
> vector units) that are visible to the compiler, we can expect more of
> this kind of trouble.
> 
> This was one of many reasons that I decided to help with the C/C++11
> effort, whatever anyone might think about the results.

Well, I applaud your efforts, but given the results I think the C/C++
people are all completely insane.

> > How do the C/C++ people propose to deal with this?
> 
> By marking "ptr" as atomic, thus telling the compiler not to mess with it.
> And thus requiring that all accesses to it be decorated, which in the
> case of RCU could be buried in the RCU accessors.

This seems contradictory; marking it atomic would look like:

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

Clearly we cannot hide this definition in accessors, because then
accesses to value* won't see the annotation.

That said; mandating we mark all 'shared' data with __atomic is
completely untenable and is not backwards compatible.

To be safe we must assume all data shared unless indicated otherwise.
--
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/