linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: optimize cmpxchg in ip_idents

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: <39ddacf9-adbe-c3f5-45a8-9c5280ef11bb@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 17:12:23 +0800
From:   Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jinyuqi@...wei.com>,
        <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <guoyang2@...wei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: optimize cmpxchg in ip_idents_reserve

Hi Peter/Eric,

Shall we use atomic_add_return() unconditionally and add some comments? Or I missed
something.

Thanks,
Shaokun

On 2020/1/20 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:48:19AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/17/20 10:38 AM, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:16:45AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> Wasńt it the case back in 2016 already for linux-4.8 ?
>>>>
>>>> What will prevent someone to send another report to netdev/lkml ?
>>>>
>>>>  -fno-strict-overflow support is not a prereq for CONFIG_UBSAN.
>>>>
>>>> Fact that we kept in lib/ubsan.c and lib/test_ubsan.c code for 
>>>> test_ubsan_add_overflow() and test_ubsan_sub_overflow() is disturbing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it was bumped in 2018 in commit cafa0010cd51 ("Raise the minimum
>>> required gcc version to 4.6"). That raised it from 3.2 -> 4.6.
>>>
>>
>> This seems good to me, for gcc at least.
>>
>> Maybe it is time to enfore -fno-strict-overflow in KBUILD_CFLAGS 
>> instead of making it conditional.
> 
> IIRC there was a bug in UBSAN vs -fwrapv/-fno-strict-overflow that was
> only fixed in gcc-8 or 9 or so.
> 
> So while the -fwrapv/-fno-strict-overflow flag has been correctly
> supported since like forever, UBSAN was buggy until quite recent when
> used in conjustion with that flag.
> 
> .
>