linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160525162829.GX3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 May 2016 18:28:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, will.deacon@....com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
	tj@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	davem@...emloft.net, oleg@...hat.com,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
	hofrat@...dl.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:57:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> For your example, but keeping the compiler in check:
> 
> 	if (READ_ONCE(a))
> 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> 	smp_rmb();
> 	WRITE_ONCE(c, 2);
> 
> On x86, the smp_rmb() is as you say nothing but barrier().  However,
> x86's TSO prohibits reordering reads with subsequent writes.  So the
> read from "a" is ordered before the write to "c".
> 
> On powerpc, the smp_rmb() will be the lwsync instruction plus a compiler
> barrier.  This orders prior reads against subsequent reads and writes, so
> again the read from "a" will be ordered befoer the write to "c".  But the
> ordering against subsequent writes is an accident of implementation.
> The real guarantee comes from powerpc's guarantee that stores won't be
> speculated, so that the read from "a" is guaranteed to be ordered before
> the write to "c" even without the smp_rmb().
> 
> On arm, the smp_rmb() is a full memory barrier, so you are good
> there.  On arm64, it is the "dmb ishld" instruction, which only orders
> reads. 

IIRC dmb ishld orders more than load vs load (like the manual states),
but I forgot the details; we'll have to wait for Will to clarify. But
yes, it also orders loads vs loads so it sufficient here.
 
> But in both arm and arm64, speculative stores are forbidden,
> just as in powerpc.  So in both cases, the load from "a" is ordered
> before the store to "c".
> 
> Other CPUs are required to behave similarly, but hopefully those
> examples help.

I would consider any architecture that allows speculative stores as
broken. They are values out of thin air and would make any kind of
concurrency extremely 'interesting'.