linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] pipe: Convert ring to head/tail

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, 17 Sep 2019 14:51:35 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] pipe: Convert ring to head/tail

Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:

> > +		/* Barrier: head belongs to the write side, so order reading
> > +		 * the data after reading the head pointer.
> > +		 */
> > +		unsigned int head = READ_ONCE(pipe->head);
> 
> Hmm, I don't understand this. Since READ_ONCE() doesn't imply a barrier,
> how are you enforcing the read-read ordering in the CPU?

It does imply a barrier: smp_read_barrier_depends().  I believe that's

> What is the purpose of saying "This may need to insert a barrier"? Can this
> function be overridden or something?

I mean it's arch-dependent whether READ_ONCE() inserts a barrier or not.

> Saying that "This inserts a barrier" feels misleading, because READ_ONCE()
> doesn't do that.

Yes it does - on the Alpha:

[arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h]
#define read_barrier_depends() __asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")

[include/asm-generic/barrier.h]
#ifndef __smp_read_barrier_depends
#define __smp_read_barrier_depends()	read_barrier_depends()
#endif
...
#ifndef smp_read_barrier_depends
#define smp_read_barrier_depends()	__smp_read_barrier_depends()
#endif

[include/linux/compiler.h]
#define __READ_ONCE(x, check)						\
({									\
	union { typeof(x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u;			\
	if (check)							\
		__read_once_size(&(x), __u.__c, sizeof(x));		\
	else								\
		__read_once_size_nocheck(&(x), __u.__c, sizeof(x));	\
	smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Enforce dependency ordering from x */ \
	__u.__val;							\
})
#define READ_ONCE(x) __READ_ONCE(x, 1)

See:

    commit 76ebbe78f7390aee075a7f3768af197ded1bdfbb
    Author: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
    Date:   Tue Oct 24 11:22:47 2017 +0100
    locking/barriers: Add implicit smp_read_barrier_depends() to READ_ONCE()

David