linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/18] locking/atomic: atomic64 type cleanup

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: <20190524224340.GA3792@andrea>
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 00:43:40 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, arnd@...db.de,
        bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
        fenghua.yu@...el.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
        jhogan@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, mattst88@...il.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, palmer@...ive.com,
        paul.burton@...s.com, paulus@...ba.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
        rth@...ddle.net, stable@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        tony.luck@...el.com, vgupta@...opsys.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jhansen@...are.com, vdasa@...are.com,
        aditr@...are.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] locking/atomic: atomic64 type cleanup

> ---
> Subject: Documentation/atomic_t.txt: Clarify pure non-rmw usage
> 
> Clarify that pure non-RMW usage of atomic_t is pointless, there is
> nothing 'magical' about atomic_set() / atomic_read().
> 
> This is something that seems to confuse people, because I happen upon it
> semi-regularly.
> 
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/atomic_t.txt | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> index dca3fb0554db..89eae7f6b360 100644
> --- a/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
> @@ -81,9 +81,11 @@ SEMANTICS
>  
>  The non-RMW ops are (typically) regular LOADs and STOREs and are canonically
>  implemented using READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), smp_load_acquire() and
> -smp_store_release() respectively.
> +smp_store_release() respectively. Therefore, if you find yourself only using
> +the Non-RMW operations of atomic_t, you do not in fact need atomic_t at all
> +and are doing it wrong.

The counterargument (not so theoretic, just look around in the kernel!) is:
we all 'forget' to use READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(), it should be difficult
or more difficult to forget to use atomic_read() and atomic_set()...   IAC,
I wouldn't call any of them 'wrong'.

  Andrea


>  
> -The one detail to this is that atomic_set{}() should be observable to the RMW
> +A subtle detail of atomic_set{}() is that it should be observable to the RMW
>  ops. That is:
>  
>    C atomic-set