| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:44:17 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
james.t.kukunas@...el.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand
size
(adding linux-arch, and possible patch below)
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 14:10 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes, on the generic it is int.
>
> The problem is in part that some architectures have bitop
> instructions with specific behavior.
I think that all bitop indices should be changed
to unsigned (int or long, probably long) for all
arches.
Is there any impediment to that?
I didn't find a negative index used anywhere
but I didn't do an exhaustive search.
There are many different arch specific declarations
of <foo>_bit functions.
For instance:
$ git grep -w clear_bit arch|grep "bitops\.h.*static"
arch/arc/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *m)
arch/arc/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *m)
arch/avr32/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
arch/blackfin/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
arch/frv/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
arch/hexagon/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
arch/m32r/include/asm/bitops.h:static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
arch/metag/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned int bit, volatile unsigned long *p)
arch/mips/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
arch/parisc/include/asm/bitops.h:static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h:static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *ptr)
arch/xtensa/include/asm/bitops.h:static inline void clear_bit(unsigned int bit, volatile unsigned long *p)
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 18:15 -0700, tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Commit-ID: 9b710506a03b01a9fdd83962912bc9d8237b82e8
> >[]
> >> x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand size
> >>
> >> Change the bitops operation to be naturally "long", i.e. 63 bits on
> >> the 64-bit kernel. Additional bugs are likely to crop up in the
> >> future.
> >
> >> We already have bugs which machines with > 16 TiB of memory in a
> >> single node, as can happen if memory is interleaved. The x86 bitop
> >> operations take a signed index, so using an unsigned type is not an
> >> option.
> >
> >I think it odd that any bitop index nr should be
> >anything other than unsigned long for any arch.
> >
> >Why should this arch be any different than the
> >defined type in Documentation/atomic_ops.txt?
> >
> >What value is a negative index when the bitmap
> >array address passed is the starting 0th bit?
> >
> >btw: asm-generic/bitops.h doesn't match
> >Documentation/atomic_ops.txt either.
---
include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h
index 9ae6c34..e4feee5 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ extern arch_spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE] __lock_aligned;
* Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not
* restricted to acting on a single-word quantity.
*/
-static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
* you should call smp_mb__before_clear_bit() and/or smp_mb__after_clear_bit()
* in order to ensure changes are visible on other processors.
*/
-static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
* Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not
* restricted to acting on a single-word quantity.
*/
-static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
@@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
* It may be reordered on other architectures than x86.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr,
+ volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
@@ -148,7 +149,8 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
* It can be reorderdered on other architectures other than x86.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr,
+ volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
@@ -171,7 +173,8 @@ static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
* This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered.
* It also implies a memory barrier.
*/
-static inline int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
+static inline int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr,
+ volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BIT_WORD(nr);
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists