linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] RISC-V: Atomic and Locking Code

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:   Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:14:25 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk,
        msalter@...hat.com, tklauser@...tanz.ch, will.deacon@....com,
        james.hogan@...tec.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, albert@...ive.com,
        patches@...ups.riscv.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] RISC-V: Atomic and Locking Code

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 06:04:13PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
[...]
> >> +#define __smp_load_acquire(p)						\
> >> +do {									\
> >> +	union { typeof(*p) __val; char __c[1]; } __u =			\
> >> +		{ .__val = (__force typeof(*p)) (v) };			\
> >> +	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
> >> +	switch (sizeof(*p)) {						\
> >> +	case 1:								\
> >> +	case 2:								\
> >> +		__u.__val = READ_ONCE(*p);				\
> >> +		smb_mb();						\
> >> +		break;							\
> >> +	case 4:								\
> >> +		__asm__ __volatile__ (					\
> >> +			"amoor.w.aq %1, zero, %0"			\
> >> +			: "+A" (*p)					\
> >> +			: "=r" (__u.__val)				\
> >> +			: "memory");					\
> >> +		break;							\
> >> +	case 8:								\
> >> +		__asm__ __volatile__ (					\
> >> +			"amoor.d.aq %1, zero, %0"			\
> >> +			: "+A" (*p)					\
> >> +			: "=r" (__u.__val)				\
> >> +			: "memory");					\
> >> +		break;							\
> >> +	}								\
> >> +	__u.__val;							\
> >> +} while (0)
> >
> > 'creative' use of amoswap and amoor :-)
> >
> > You should really look at a normal load with ordering instruction
> > though, that amoor.aq is a rmw and will promote the cacheline to
> > exclusive (and dirty it).
> 
> The thought here was that implementations could elide the MW by pattern
> matching the "zero" (x0, the architectural zero register) forms of AMOs where
> it's interesting.  I talked to one of our microarchitecture guys, and while he
> agrees that's easy he points out that eliding half the AMO may wreak havoc on
> the consistency model.  Since we're not sure what the memory model is actually
> going to look like, we thought it'd be best to just write the simplest code
> here
> 
>   /*
>    * TODO_RISCV_MEMORY_MODEL: While we could emit AMOs for the W and D sized
>    * accesses here, it's questionable if that actually helps or not: the lack of
>    * offsets in the AMOs means they're usually preceded by an addi, so they
>    * probably won't save code space.  For now we'll just emit the fence.
>    */
>   #define __smp_store_release(p, v)                                       \
>   ({                                                                      \
>           compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);                             \
>           smp_mb();                                                       \
>           WRITE_ONCE(*p, v);                                              \
>   })
> 
>   #define __smp_load_acquire(p)                                           \
>   ({                                                                      \
>           union{typeof(*p) __p; long __l;} __u;                           \

AFAICT, there seems to be an endian issue if you do this. No?

Let us assume typeof(*p) is char and *p == 1, and on a big endian 32bit
platform:

>           compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);                             \
>           __u.__l = READ_ONCE(*p);                                        \

	READ_ONCE(*p) is 1 so
	__u.__l is 0x00 00 00 01 now

>           smp_mb();                                                       \
>           __u.__p;                                                        \

	__u.__p is then 0x00.

Am I missing something here?

Even so why not use the simple definition as in include/asm-generic/barrier.h?

Regards,
Boqun



>   })
> 
[...]

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)