linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

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:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:37:02 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:54:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good points.  How about the following replacements?
> >
> > 3.      Adding or subtracting an integer to/from a chained pointer
> >         results in another chained pointer in that same pointer chain.
> >         The results of addition and subtraction operations that cancel
> >         the chained pointer's value (for example, "p-(long)p" where "p"
> >         is a pointer to char) are implementation defined.
> >
> > 4.      Bitwise operators ("&", "|", "^", and I suppose also "~")
> >         applied to a chained pointer and an integer for the purposes
> >         of alignment and pointer translation results in another
> >         chained pointer in that same pointer chain.  Other uses
> >         of bitwise operators on chained pointers (for example,
> >         "p|~0") are implementation defined.
> 
> Quite frankly, I think all of this language that is about the actual
> operations is irrelevant and wrong.
> 
> It's not going to help compiler writers, and it sure isn't going to
> help users that read this.
> 
> Why not just talk about "value chains" and that any operations that
> restrict the value range severely end up breaking the chain. There is
> no point in listing the operations individually, because every single
> operation *can* restrict things. Listing individual operations and
> depdendencies is just fundamentally wrong.
> 
> For example, let's look at this obvious case:
> 
>    int q,*p = atomic_read(&pp, consume);
>    .. nothing modifies 'p' ..
>    q = *p;
> 
> and there are literally *zero* operations that modify the value
> change, so obviously the two operations are ordered, right?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> What if the "nothing modifies 'p'" part looks like this:
> 
>     if (p != &myvariable)
>         return;
> 
> and now any sane compiler will happily optimize "q = *p" into "q =
> myvariable", and we're all done - nothing invalid was ever

Yes, the compiler could do that.  But it would still be required to
carry a dependency from the memory_order_consume read to the "*p",
which it could do by compiling "q = *p" rather than "q = myvariable"
on the one hand or by emitting a memory-barrier instruction on the other.

This was the point of #12:

12.	A memory_order_consume load carries a dependency to any
	dereference operator (unary "*", "[]", and "->") in the
	resulting pointer chain.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/