linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] RISC-V: User-facing API

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:   Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     will.deacon@....com
CC:     hch@...radead.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
        tklauser@...tanz.ch, james.hogan@...tec.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 8/9] RISC-V: User-facing API

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:22:15 PDT (-0700), will.deacon@....com wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:00:29PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 08:45:13 PDT (-0700), will.deacon@....com wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:34:27AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:55:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> > Agreed on the indirection; it feels like this is something that should be in
>> >> > the vDSO, which could use the cmpxchg instruction if it's available, or
>> >> > otherwise just uses plain loads and stores.
>>
>> These are already in the vDSO, and use the corresponding atomic instructions on
>> systems with the A extension.  The vDSO routines call the system calls in non-A
>> systems.  As far as I can tell that's necessary to preserve atomicity, which we
>> currently do by disabling scheduling.  If there's a way to do this without
>> entering the kernel then I'd be happy to support it, but I'm not sure how we
>> could maintain atomicity using only regular loads and stores.
>
> Take a look at the ARM code I mentioned. You can do away with the syscall if
> you notice that you preempt a thread inside the critical section of the
> vDSO, and, in that case you resume execution at a known "restart" address.
>
>> >> Even that seems like a lot of indirection for something that is in
>> >> the critical fast path for synchronization.  I really can't understand
>> >> how a new ISA / ABI could even come up with an idea as stupid as making
>> >> essential synchronization primitives optional.
>> >
>> > No disagreement there!
>>
>> The default set of multilibs on Linux are:
>>
>>  * rv32imac: 32-bit; Multiply, Atomic, and Compressed extensions
>>  * rv32imafdc: like above, but with single+double float
>>  * rv64imac: 64-bit, Multiply, Atomic and Compressed
>>  * rv64imafdc: like above, but with single+double float
>>
>> all of which support the A extension.  We certainly don't plan on building any
>> systems that support Linux without the A extension at SiFive, so I'm fine
>> removing the system call -- this was originally added by a user, so there was
>> at least enough interest for someone to add the system call.
>>
>> We've found people are retrofitting other cores to run RISC-V, and I could
>> certainly imagine an older design that lacks a beefy enough memory system to
>> support our atomics (which are LR/SC based) being a design that might arise.
>> There's a lot of systems where people don't seem to care that much about the
>> performance and just want something to work -- if they're on such a tiny system
>> they can't implement the A extension then they're probably not going to be
>> doing a lot of atomics anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter if atomics are slow.
>> As the cost for supporting these A-less systems seems fairly small, it seemed
>> like the right thing to do -- one of the points of making RISC-V have many
>> optional extensions was to let people pick the ones they view as important.
>> Since I don't know the performance constraints of their systems or the cost of
>> implementing the A extension in their design, I'm not really qualified to tell
>> them a cmpxchg syscall is a bad idea.
>
> The problem is that by supporting these hypothetical designs that can't do
> atomics, you hurt sensible designs that *can* do the atomics because you
> force them to take an additional indirection that could otherwise be
> avoided.

I just went ahead and removed the system calls from the port -- they're not
going to get called on any systems SiFive is building, so if someone complains
then we'll just sort it out later.