linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Rework READ

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: <CAHk-=wggv_LmrL85Ez0TLcAku8iz05VZmJxDGo=2aP2VvQtrsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:14:45 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> Isn't the read_barrier_depends() the only reason for actually needing
> the temporary local variable that must not be volatile?
>
> If you make alpha provide its own READ_ONCE() as the first
> step, it would seem that the rest of the series gets much easier
> as the others can go back to the simple statement from your

Hmm.. The union still would cause that "take the address of a volatile
thing on the stack" problem, wouldn't it? And that was what caused
most of the issues.

I think the _real_ issue is how KASAN forces that odd pair of inline
functions in order to have the annotations on the accesses.

                Linus