linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB

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: <4881796E12491D4BB15146FE0209CE64681DB122@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:44:49 +0000
From:   Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@...opsys.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>,
        Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@...opsys.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN = 8

Hi Peter,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:32 PM
> To: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@...opsys.com>
> Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>; Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@...opsys.com>; linux-snps-
> arc@...ts.infradead.org; Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> stable@...r.kernel.org; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN = 8
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:23:36PM -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > On 2/13/19 4:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I think u64 and company should already force natural
> > > alignment; but alas.
> >
> > But there is an ISA/ABI angle here too. e.g. On 32-bit ARC, LDD (load double) is
> > allowed to take a 32-bit aligned address to load a register pair. Thus all u64
> > need not be 64-bit aligned (unless attribute aligned 8 etc) hence the relaxation
> > in ABI (alignment of long long is 4). You could certainly argue that we end up
> > undoing some of it anyways by defining things like ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN to 8, but
> > still...
> 
> So what happens if the data is then split across two cachelines; will a
> STD vs LDD still be single-copy-atomic? I don't _think_ we rely on that
> for > sizeof(unsigned long), with the obvious exception of atomic64_t,
> but yuck...

STD & LDD are simple store/load instructions so there's no problem for
their 64-bit data to be from 2 subsequent cache lines as well as 2 pages
(if we're that unlucky). Or you mean something else?

> So even though it is allowed by the chip; does it really make sense to
> use this?

It gives performance benefits when dealing with either 64-bit or even
larger buffers, see how we use it in our string routines like here [1].

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arc/lib/memset-archs.S#n81

-Alexey