linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force 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: <547394D5.4020301@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:28:05 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar
 types

Am 24.11.2014 um 20:42 schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:14:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Christian Borntraeger
>> <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks really nice, but does not work with ACCESS_ONCE is on the left-hand side:
>>
>> Oh, I forgot about that. And that was indeed why I had done that whole
>> helper macro originally, with ACCESS_ONCE() itself just being the
>> dereference of the pointer.
> 
> OK, how about the following?
> 
> It complains if the variable is too large, for example, long long on
> 32-bit systems or large structures.  It is OK loading from and storing
> to small structures as well, which I am having a hard time thinking of
> as a disadvantage.

Well, the motivation for this series was that gcc  4.6 and 4.7 might ignore volatile for
such a case, see the original thread and this data structure

union ipte_control {
        unsigned long val;
        struct {
                unsigned long k  : 1;
                unsigned long kh : 31;
                unsigned long kg : 32;
        };
};

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> #define get_scalar_volatile_pointer(x) ({ \
> 	volatile typeof(x) *__vp = &(x); \
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(char) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(short) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(int) && \
> 		     sizeof(*__vp) != sizeof(long)); \
> 	__vp; })
> #define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*get_scalar_volatile_pointer(x))
> 

This gives also several compiler errors when accessing u64 on a 32bit system. This is expected, but more widespread than expected - ouch.

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/