linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp

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:	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:00:43 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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>,
	"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp_tmb()

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 06:49:43PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:05:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +#define smp_store_release(p, v)                                              \
> > > > +do {                                                                 \
> > > > +     smp_mb();                                                       \
> > > > +     ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (v);                                           \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > > +
> > > > +#define smp_load_acquire(p, v)                                               \
> > > > +do {                                                                 \
> > > > +     typeof(p) ___p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p);                               \
> > > > +     smp_mb();                                                       \
> > > > +     return ___p1;                                                   \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > 
> > What data sizes do these accessors operate on? Assuming that we want
> > single-copy atomicity (with respect to interrupts in the UP case), we
> > probably want a check to stop people passing in things like structs.
> 
> Fair enough; I think we should restrict to native word sizes same as we
> do for atomics.
> 
> Something like so perhaps:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> #define __check_native_word(t)	(sizeof(t) == 4 || sizeof(t) == 8)

Ok, if we want to support 32-bit accesses on 64-bit machines, that will
complicate some of your assembly (more below).

> #else
> #define __check_native_word(t)	(sizeof(t) == 4)
> #endif
> 
> #define smp_store_release(p, v) 		\
> do {						\
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__check_native_word(p));	\
> 	smp_mb();				\
> 	ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (v);			\
> } while (0)
> 
> > > > +#define smp_store_release(p, v)                                              \
> > > > +do {                                                                 \
> > > > +     asm volatile ("stlr %w0 [%1]" : : "r" (v), "r" (&p) : "memory");\
> > 
> > Missing comma between the operands. Also, that 'w' output modifier enforces
> > a 32-bit store (same early question about sizes). Finally, it might be more
> > efficient to use "=Q" for the addressing mode, rather than take the address
> > of p manually.
> 
> so something like:
> 
> 	asm volatile ("stlr %0, [%1]" : : "r" (v), "=Q" (p) : "memory");
> 
> ?
> 
> My inline asm foo is horrid and I mostly get by with copy paste from a
> semi similar existing form :/

Almost: you just need to drop the square brackets and make the memory
location an output operand:

	asm volatile("stlr %1, %0" : "=Q" (p) : "r" (v) : "memory");

however, for a 32-bit access, you need to use an output modifier:

	asm volatile("stlr %w1, %0" : "=Q" (p) : "r" (v) : "memory");

so I guess a switch on sizeof(p) is required.

> > Random other question: have you considered how these accessors should behave
> > when presented with __iomem pointers?
> 
> A what? ;-)

Then let's go with Paul's suggestion of mandating __kernel, or the like
(unless we need to worry about __user addresses for things like futexes?).

Will
--
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/