linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic, x86: wrap atomic operations

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: <CACT4Y+ZA51-WnVUUr2jXZCDxkrKA_RpQkMf58niiu5FvBrXZ4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:29:39 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] asm-generic, x86: wrap atomic operations

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> > So I'm not convinced that it's true in this case.
>> >
>> > Could we see the C version and compare? I could be wrong about it all.
>>
>> Here it is (without instrumentation):
>> https://gist.github.com/dvyukov/e33d580f701019e0cd99429054ff1f9a
>
> Could you please include the full patch so that it can be discussed via email and
> such?


Mailed the whole series.


>> Instrumentation will add for each function:
>>
>>  static __always_inline void atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, long long i)
>>  {
>> +       kasan_check_write(v, sizeof(*v));
>>         arch_atomic64_set(v, i);
>>  }
>
> That in itself looks sensible and readable.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo