linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/18] seqcount: Introduce raw_write_seqcount

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:15:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, ktkhai@...allels.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...il.com,
	pang.xunlei@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] seqcount: Introduce raw_write_seqcount_barrier()

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:02:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 07:11:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:37:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The point of std::atomic<> (and of the equivalent C11 syntax) is to
> > > force the compiler to suppress optimizations that are unsafe for shared
> > > variables.  We get more or less the same effect with volatile, protests
> > > from compiler people notwithstanding.
> > > 
> > > I often tell the compiler guys that they have to expect make -some-
> > > concessions for being 30 years late to the concurrency party, but
> > > it nevertheless makes sense to future-proof our code where it is
> > > reasonable to do so.
> > 
> > Right, so in that regards I would request the compiler option (and or
> > #pragma) that disables all the out-of-thin-air nonsense.
> 
> OK.  What is the form of the #pragma?  If it focuses on a specific
> access, we are likely to get a lot of pushback.

I didn't have anything specific in mind; other than

#pragma no_speculative_stores_ever

Which would forbid all these retarded 'optimizations' for the entire
translation unit.

> > Because while they hide behind their undefined behaviour, the fact is
> > that all of their machines for the past 30 odd years have been relying
> > on this 'undefined' behaviour to work. This being the machines they've
> > been typing their useless specs on :-)
> 
> Maybe I can scare them into doing all their work on UP systems.  ;-)
> 
> Interestingly enough, LLVM is taking a slightly different approach.
> Rather than invoke undefined behavior, they say that data races result
> in random bits being loaded.  Not that it makes much difference to the
> health and well-being of the software, mind you...

I'm not sure I follow that argument.

> > I doubt there's a single OS kernel (that supports SMP configurations)
> > that does not rely on a whole host of 'undefined' behaviour.
> 
> An alternative approach would be a compiler switch (or similar) that
> changed the default atomic access from SC to relaxed.  Then shared
> variables could be marked atomic, and normal C code could be used to
> access them, but without the compiler emitting memory barriers all over
> the place (yes, even on x86).

See, I don;'t think that is a realistic approach. Who is going to audit
our ~16 million lines of code to mark all shared variables? Or all the
other existing code bases that rely on this behaviour?
--
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/