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  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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:39:02 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
To:	Pranith Kumar <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>,
	"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: cmpxchg_double: Add missing memory clobber

On 10/06/2015 01:29 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
>> NAK.  We already have the "+m" for exactly this reason; adding an
>> explicit memory clobber should only be used to prevent movement of
>> *other* memory operations around this one (i.e. a barrier).
> OK. If that is so, can you please explain why we need it in the
> __raw_cmpxchg() case? I think it is a good idea to make cmpxchg() and
> cmpxchg_double() have similar barrier semantics.

OK, it is a bit of a mess.  We use the same macros for locked operations
(__cmpxchg and __sync_cmpxchg) and unlocked operations
(__cmpxchg_local).  For locked operations we generally want a compiler
barrier, although there are exceptions.  I'm wondering if it would be
better to add an explicit barrier(); to the locked versions.

However, I think one of the major uses for cmpxchg_double() is for page
table manipulation, and for that it isn't clear that a compiler barrier
is needed nor desired.

On the other hand, perhaps all of this is false optimization and we
should just add the memory clobber.  The real issue is the impact on the
_local variants.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists