linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3 7/8] locking: Move smp_cond_load_acquire() and friends into asm-generic/barrier.h

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]

Date:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:00:10 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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: [PATCH -v3 7/8] locking: Move smp_cond_load_acquire() and
 friends into asm-generic/barrier.h

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:31:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:01:06PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > You are doing two READ_ONCE's in the smp_cond_load_acquire loop. Can we
> > change it to do just one READ_ONCE, like
> > 
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> > @@ -229,12 +229,18 @@ do {
> >   * value; some architectures can do this in hardware.
> >   */
> >  #ifndef cmpwait
> > +#define cmpwait(ptr, val) ({                                   \
> >         typeof (ptr) __ptr = (ptr);                             \
> > +       typeof (val) __old = (val);                             \
> > +       typeof (val) __new;                                     \
> > +       for (;;) {                                              \
> > +               __new = READ_ONCE(*__ptr);                      \
> > +               if (__new != __old)                             \
> > +                       break;                                  \
> >                 cpu_relax();                                    \
> > +       }                                                       \
> > +       __new;                                                  \
> > +})
> >  #endif
> > 
> >  /**
> > @@ -251,12 +257,11 @@ do {
> >  #ifndef smp_cond_load_acquire
> >  #define smp_cond_load_acquire(ptr, cond_expr) ({               \
> >         typeof(ptr) __PTR = (ptr);                              \
> > +       typeof(*ptr) VAL = READ_ONCE(*__PTR);                   \
> >         for (;;) {                                              \
> >                 if (cond_expr)                                  \
> >                         break;                                  \
> > +               VAL = cmpwait(__PTR, VAL);                      \
> >         }                                                       \
> >         smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();                          \
> >         VAL;                                                    \
> 
> Yes, that generates slightly better code, but now that you made me look
> at it, I think we need to kill the cmpwait() in the generic version and
> only keep it for arch versions.
> 
> /me ponders...
> 
> So cmpwait() as implemented here has strict semantics; but arch
> implementations as previously proposed have less strict semantics; and
> the use here follows that less strict variant.
> 
> The difference being that the arch implementations of cmpwait can have
> false positives (ie. return early, without a changed value)
> smp_cond_load_acquire() can deal with these false positives seeing how
> its in a loop and does its own (more specific) comparison.
> 
> Exposing cmpwait(), with the documented semantics, means that arch
> versions need an additional loop inside to match these strict semantics,
> or we need to weaken the cmpwait() semantics, at which point I'm not
> entirely sure its worth keeping as a generic primitive...
> 
> Hmm, so if we can find a use for the weaker cmpwait() outside of
> smp_cond_load_acquire() I think we can make a case for keeping it, and
> looking at qspinlock.h there's two sites we can replace cpu_relax() with
> it.
> 
> Will, since ARM64 seems to want to use this, does the below make sense
> to you?

Not especially -- I was going to override smp_cond_load_acquire anyway
because I want to build it using cmpwait_acquire and get rid of the
smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep trick, which is likely slower on arm64.

So I'd be happier nuking cmpwait from the generic interfaces and using
smp_cond_load_acquire everywhere, if that's possible.

Will