linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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: <2049061625.6140.1453916208296.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:36:48 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number
 of running thread

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> With the dynamic allocation removed, this seems sensible to me.  One
>> minor nit: s/int32_t/uint32_t/g, since a location intended to hold a CPU
>> number should never need to hold a negative number.
> 
> You try to block the future of computing: https://lwn.net/Articles/638673/

Besides impossible architectures, there is actually a use-case for
signedness here. It makes it possible to initialize the cpu number
cache to a negative value, e.g. -1, in userspace. Then, a check for
value < 0 can be used to figure out cases where the getcpu_cache
system call is not implemented, and where a fallback (vdso or getcpu
syscall) needs to be used.

This is why I have chosen a signed type for the cpu cache so far.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com