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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1405081614100.4346@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 May 2014 16:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc


[ I found this in the lkml archvive ]

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
>
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote on 10/30/2013 01:25:26 PM:
> >
> > > Also, I'm not entirely sure on C, that too seems like a dependency, we
> > > simply cannot read the buffer @tail before we've read the tail itself,
> > > now can we? Similarly we cannot compare tail to head without having the
> > > head read completed.
> >
> > No, this one we cannot omit, because our problem on consumer side is not
> > with @tail, which is written exclusively by consumer, but with @head.
>
> Ah indeed, my argument was flawed in that @head is the important part.
> But we still do a comparison of @tail against @head before we do further
> reads.
>
> Although I suppose speculative reads are allowed -- they don't have the
> destructive behaviour speculative writes have -- and thus we could in
> fact get reorder issues.
>
> But since it is still a dependent load in that we do that @tail vs @head
> comparison before doing other loads, wouldn't a read_barrier_depends()
> be sufficient? Or do we still need a complete rmb?
>
> > BTW, it is why you also don't need ACCESS_ONCE() around @tail, but only
> > around
> > @head read.
>
> Agreed, the ACCESS_ONCE() around tail is superfluous since we're the one
> updating tail, so there's no problem with the value changing
> unexpectedly.

You need ACCESS_ONCE even if you are the only process writing the value. 
Because without ACCESS_ONCE, the compiler may perform store tearing and 
split the store into several smaller stores. Search the file 
"Documentation/memory-barriers.txt" for the term "store tearing", it shows 
an example where one instruction storing 32-bit value may be split to two 
instructions, each storing 16-bit value.

Mikulas

--
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/