linux-kernel - [PATCH 05/13] alpha: Override READ_ONCE() with barriered implementation

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: <20191108170120.22331-6-will@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri,  8 Nov 2019 17:01:12 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yunjae Lee <lyj7694@...il.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH 05/13] alpha: Override READ_ONCE() with barriered implementation

Rather then relying on the core code to use 'smp_read_barrier_depends()'
as part of the 'READ_ONCE()' definition, instead override 'READ_ONCE()'
in the Alpha code so that it is treated the same way as
'smp_load_acquire()'.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
---
 arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h | 61 ++++----------------------------
 arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h  | 22 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h

diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
index 92ec486a4f9e..1f6abe2d1392 100644
--- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -2,64 +2,17 @@
 #ifndef __BARRIER_H
 #define __BARRIER_H
 
-#include <asm/compiler.h>
-
 #define mb()	__asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
 #define rmb()	__asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
 #define wmb()	__asm__ __volatile__("wmb": : :"memory")
 
-/**
- * read_barrier_depends - Flush all pending reads that subsequents reads
- * depend on.
- *
- * No data-dependent reads from memory-like regions are ever reordered
- * over this barrier.  All reads preceding this primitive are guaranteed
- * to access memory (but not necessarily other CPUs' caches) before any
- * reads following this primitive that depend on the data return by
- * any of the preceding reads.  This primitive is much lighter weight than
- * rmb() on most CPUs, and is never heavier weight than is
- * rmb().
- *
- * These ordering constraints are respected by both the local CPU
- * and the compiler.
- *
- * Ordering is not guaranteed by anything other than these primitives,
- * not even by data dependencies.  See the documentation for
- * memory_barrier() for examples and URLs to more information.
- *
- * For example, the following code would force ordering (the initial
- * value of "a" is zero, "b" is one, and "p" is "&a"):
- *
- * <programlisting>
- *	CPU 0				CPU 1
- *
- *	b = 2;
- *	memory_barrier();
- *	p = &b;				q = p;
- *					read_barrier_depends();
- *					d = *q;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * because the read of "*q" depends on the read of "p" and these
- * two reads are separated by a read_barrier_depends().  However,
- * the following code, with the same initial values for "a" and "b":
- *
- * <programlisting>
- *	CPU 0				CPU 1
- *
- *	a = 2;
- *	memory_barrier();
- *	b = 3;				y = b;
- *					read_barrier_depends();
- *					x = a;
- * </programlisting>
- *
- * does not enforce ordering, since there is no data dependency between
- * the read of "a" and the read of "b".  Therefore, on some CPUs, such
- * as Alpha, "y" could be set to 3 and "x" to 0.  Use rmb()
- * in cases like this where there are no data dependencies.
- */
-#define read_barrier_depends() __asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
+#define __smp_load_acquire(p)						\
+({									\
+	typeof(*p) ___p1 = (*(volatile typeof(*p) *)(p));		\
+	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
+	mb();								\
+	___p1;								\
+})
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 #define __ASM_SMP_MB	"\tmb\n"
diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ef5601352b55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2019 Google LLC.
+ */
+#ifndef __ASM_RWONCE_H
+#define __ASM_RWONCE_H
+
+#include <asm/barrier.h>
+
+/*
+ * Alpha is apparently daft enough to reorder address-dependent loads
+ * on some CPU implementations. Knock some common sense into it with
+ * a memory barrier in READ_ONCE().
+ */
+#define __read_once_size_1(p)	__smp_load_acquire((u8 *)(p))
+#define __read_once_size_2(p)	__smp_load_acquire((u16 *)(p))
+#define __read_once_size_4(p)	__smp_load_acquire((u32 *)(p))
+#define __read_once_size_8(p)	__smp_load_acquire((u64 *)(p))
+
+#include <asm-generic/rwonce.h>
+
+#endif /* __ASM_RWONCE_H */
-- 
2.24.0.rc1.363.gb1bccd3e3d-goog