linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store

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: <56956276.1090705@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:30:46 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>> #ifdef xchgrz
>> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */
>> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0, -4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory", "cc"); } while (0)
>> #endif
>
> That's not safe in general. gcc might be using its redzone, so doing
> xchg into it is unsafe.
>
> But..
>
>> Is this a good way to test it?
>
> .. it's fine for some basic testing. It doesn't show any subtle
> interactions (ie some operations may have different dynamic behavior
> when the write buffers are busy etc), but as a baseline for "how fast
> can things go" the stupid raw loop is fine. And while the xchg into
> the redzoen wouldn't be acceptable as a real implementation, for
> timing testing it's likely fine (ie you aren't hitting the problem it
> can cause).

I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even 
64) was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot 
write buffers.

--Andy