linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 6/7] arm64: Replace ACCESS

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: <54737DF9.20009@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:50:33 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 6/7] arm64: Replace ACCESS_ONCE for spinlock code
 with barriers

Am 24.11.2014 um 14:03 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> ACCESS_ONCE does not work reliably on non-scalar types. For
> example gcc 4.6 and 4.7 might remove the volatile tag for such
> accesses during the SRA (scalar replacement of aggregates) step
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145)
> 
> Change the spinlock code to access the lock with a barrier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index c45b7b1..f72dc64 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -99,12 +99,15 @@ static inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(ACCESS_ONCE(*lock));
> +	arch_spinlock_t lockval = *lock;
> +	barrier();
> +	return !arch_spin_value_unlocked(lockval);
>  }
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_contended(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -	arch_spinlock_t lockval = ACCESS_ONCE(*lock);
> +	arch_spinlock_t lockval = *lock;
> +	barrier();
>  	return (lockval.next - lockval.owner) > 1;
>  }
>  #define arch_spin_is_contended	arch_spin_is_contended
> 
FWIW,

we could also make this with ACCESS_ONCE, but this requires to change the definition of arch_spinlock_t for arm64 to be a union. I am a bit reluctant to do these changes without being able to test. Let me know if this is preferred and if somebody else can test.

Christian

--
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/