linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] ia64: Fix atomic ops vs memory barriers

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: <20140204164022.GZ5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:40:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ia64: Fix atomic ops vs memory barriers

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:29:36AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > The below patch assumes the SDM is right (TM), and fixes the atomic_t,
> > cmpxchg() and xchg() implementations by inserting a mf before the
> > cmpxchg.acq (or xchg).
> 
> You picked the wrong thing to be right. The SDM is wrong.

Figured, just my luck :-)

> Last time this came up, Tony explained it thus:
> 
> >> Worse still - early processor implementations actually just ignored
> >> the acquire/release and did a full fence all the time.  Unfortunately
> >> this meant a lot of badly written code that used .acq when they really
> >> wanted .rel became legacy out in the wild - so when we made a cpu
> >> that strictly did the .acq or .rel ... all that code started breaking - so
> >> we had to back-pedal and keep the "legacy" behavior of a full fence :-(

That would make a lovely comment near ia64_cmpxchg().

> and since ia64 is basically on life support as an architecture, we can
> pretty much agree that the SDM is dead, and the only thing that
> matters is implementation.
> 
> The above quote was strictly in the context of just cmpxchg, though,
> so it's possible that the "fetchadd" instruction acts differently. I
> would personally expect it to have the same issues, but let's see what
> Tony says.. Tony?

I would suspect it to be a full fence too, let me do the reverse patch.

---
--- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -65,11 +65,8 @@ __set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
 	*((__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5)) |= (1 << (nr & 31));
 }
 
-/*
- * clear_bit() has "acquire" semantics.
- */
-#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()	smp_mb()
-#define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()	do { /* skip */; } while (0)
+#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()	barrier();
+#define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()	barrier();
 
 /**
  * clear_bit - Clears a bit in memory
--- a/arch/ia64/include/uapi/asm/cmpxchg.h
+++ b/arch/ia64/include/uapi/asm/cmpxchg.h
@@ -118,6 +118,15 @@ extern long ia64_cmpxchg_called_with_bad
 #define cmpxchg_rel(ptr, o, n)	\
 	ia64_cmpxchg(rel, (ptr), (o), (n), sizeof(*(ptr)))
 
+/*
+ * Worse still - early processor implementations actually just ignored
+ * the acquire/release and did a full fence all the time.  Unfortunately
+ * this meant a lot of badly written code that used .acq when they really
+ * wanted .rel became legacy out in the wild - so when we made a cpu
+ * that strictly did the .acq or .rel ... all that code started breaking - so
+ * we had to back-pedal and keep the "legacy" behavior of a full fence :-(
+ */
+
 /* for compatibility with other platforms: */
 #define cmpxchg(ptr, o, n)	cmpxchg_acq((ptr), (o), (n))
 #define cmpxchg64(ptr, o, n)	cmpxchg_acq((ptr), (o), (n))
--
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/