linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond

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: <20151102183659.GN29657@arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:37:00 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	boqun.feng@...il.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do {            \
> > +       while (!(cond))                         \
> > +               cpu_relax();                    \
> > +       smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* ctrl */  \
> > +       smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */  \
> > +} while (0)
> 
> This code makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> smp_read_barrier_depends() is about a memory barrier where there is a
> data dependency between two accesses. The "depends" is very much about
> the data dependency, and very much about *nothing* else.

Paul wasn't so sure, which I think is why smp_read_barrier_depends()
is already used in, for example, READ_ONCE_CTRL:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151007154003.GJ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com

although I agree that this would pave the way for speculative stores on
Alpha and that seems like a heavy accusation to make.

> Your comment talks about control dependencies, but
> smp_read_barrier_depends() has absolutely nothing to do with a control
> dependency. In fact, it is explicitly a no-op on architectures like
> ARM and PowerPC that violate control dependencies.

In this case, control dependencies are only referring to READ -> WRITE
ordering, so they are honoured by ARM and PowerPC.

Will
--
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/