linux-kernel - Re: bit fields && data tearing

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]

Message-ID: <1410215994.2027.86.camel@jarvis.lan>
Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:39:54 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 12:12 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 12:09 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > Um, I think you need to re-read the thread; that's not what I said at
> > all. It's even written lower down: "PA can't do atomic bit sets (no
> > atomic RMW except the ldcw operation) it can do atomic writes to
> > fundamental sizes (byte, short, int, long) provided gcc emits the
> > correct primitive".  The original question was whether atomicity
> > required native bus width access, which we currently assume, so there's
> > no extant problem.
> > 
> 
> The issue at hand was whether or not partially overlapped (but natually
> aligned) writes can pass each other.  *This* is the aggressive
> relaxation to which I am referring.

I don't understand what you mean by "pass each other".  Atomicity
guarantees are not ordering guarantees in a SMP environment.  The
guarantee is that if you follow the rules when two CPUs update the same
natural width aligned object simultaneously using the same primitive,
the result is either one or the other of their updates.  Which one wins
(the ordering) isn't defined.

James


> I would guess that that is a very unusual constraint.


--
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/