linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier

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: <20151020071532.GB17714@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:15:32 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and
 *cmpxchg a full barrier

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:19:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Am I missing something here?  If not, it seems to me that you need
> the leading lwsync to instead be a sync.
> 
> Of course, if I am not missing something, then this applies also to the
> value-returning RMW atomic operations that you pulled this pattern from.
> If so, it would seem that I didn't think through all the possibilities
> back when PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER moved to sync...  In fact, I believe
> that I worried about the RMW atomic operation acting as a barrier,
> but not as the load/store itself.  :-/
> 

Paul, I know this may be difficult, but could you recall why the
__futex_atomic_op() and futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() also got
involved into the movement of PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER to "sync"?

I did some search, but couldn't find the discussion of that patch.

I ask this because I recall Peter once bought up a discussion:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/596

Peter's conclusion seems to be that we could(though didn't want to) live
with futex atomics not being full barriers.

Peter, just be clear, I'm not in favor of relaxing futex atomics. But if
I make PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER being "sync", it will also strengthen
the futex atomics, just wonder whether such strengthen is a -fix- or
not, considering that I want this patch to go to -stable tree.

Of course, in the meanwhile of waiting for your answer, I will try to
figure out this by myself ;-)

Regards,
Boqun

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)