linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5514610B.2000707@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:42:03 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the access_once tree

Am 26.03.2015 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> Am 26.03.2015 um 18:07 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:45:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> Stop this idiocy.
>>
>> Yeah, clearly I can type faster than I can think straight :/
>>
>>
>> In any case, I've the below patch; do you want to take it now or do you
>> want me to route it through tip/locking/urgent or something like that?
> 
> Its not urgent. Current upstream has a broken check (gcc will not emit the
> warning if the function is static). I just fixed the check in my next tree
> but I can certainly drop that tree.
> 

Thinking more about that, the removal of the ifdef for 64bit data might be
a reason to schedule that for 4.0.


>>
>> ---
>> Subject: kernel: Remove atomicy checks from {READ,WRITE}_ONCE
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:37 +0100
>>
>> The fact that volatile allows for atomic load/stores is a special case
>> not a requirement for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). Their primary purpose is to
>> force the compiler to emit load/stores _once_.
>>
>> So remove the warning as it is correct behaviour. This also implies that
>> the u64 case is not 64bit only, so remove the #ifdef so we can generate
>> better code in that case.
>>
>> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
>> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> 
> 
>> ---
>>  include/linux/compiler.h | 16 ----------------
>>  1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
>> index 1b45e4a0519b..0e41ca0e5927 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
>> @@ -192,29 +192,16 @@ void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect);
>>
>>  #include <uapi/linux/types.h>
>>
>> -static __always_inline void data_access_exceeds_word_size(void)
>> -#ifdef __compiletime_warning
>> -__compiletime_warning("data access exceeds word size and won't be atomic")
>> -#endif
>> -;
>> -
>> -static __always_inline void data_access_exceeds_word_size(void)
>> -{
>> -}
>> -
>>  static __always_inline void __read_once_size(const volatile void *p, void *res, int size)
>>  {
>>  	switch (size) {
>>  	case 1: *(__u8 *)res = *(volatile __u8 *)p; break;
>>  	case 2: *(__u16 *)res = *(volatile __u16 *)p; break;
>>  	case 4: *(__u32 *)res = *(volatile __u32 *)p; break;
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>  	case 8: *(__u64 *)res = *(volatile __u64 *)p; break;
>> -#endif
>>  	default:
>>  		barrier();
>>  		__builtin_memcpy((void *)res, (const void *)p, size);
>> -		data_access_exceeds_word_size();
>>  		barrier();
>>  	}
>>  }
>> @@ -225,13 +212,10 @@ static __always_inline void __write_once_size(volatile void *p, void *res, int s
>>  	case 1: *(volatile __u8 *)p = *(__u8 *)res; break;
>>  	case 2: *(volatile __u16 *)p = *(__u16 *)res; break;
>>  	case 4: *(volatile __u32 *)p = *(__u32 *)res; break;
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>  	case 8: *(volatile __u64 *)p = *(__u64 *)res; break;
>> -#endif
>>  	default:
>>  		barrier();
>>  		__builtin_memcpy((void *)p, (const void *)res, size);
>> -		data_access_exceeds_word_size();
>>  		barrier();
>>  	}
>>  }
>>
> 

--
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/