linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/18] 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]

Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:48:33 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.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 S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] alpha: Override READ_ONCE() with barriered
 implementation

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:32:39AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:37:20PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > -#define read_barrier_depends() __asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
> > +#define __smp_load_acquire(p)						\
> > +({									\
> > +	__unqual_scalar_typeof(*p) ___p1 =				\
> > +		(*(volatile typeof(___p1) *)(p));			\
> > +	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
> > +	___p1;								\
> > +})
> 
> Sorry if I'm being thick, but doesn't this need a barrier after the
> volatile access to provide the acquire semantic?
> 
> IIUC prior to this commit alpha would have used the asm-generic
> __smp_load_acquire, i.e.
> 
> | #ifndef __smp_load_acquire
> | #define __smp_load_acquire(p)                                           \
> | ({                                                                      \
> |         __unqual_scalar_typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p);               \
> |         compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);                             \
> |         __smp_mb();                                                     \
> |         (typeof(*p))___p1;                                              \
> | })
> | #endif
> 
> ... where the __smp_mb() would be alpha's mb() from earlier in the patch
> context, i.e.
> 
> | #define mb() __asm__ __volatile__("mb": : :"memory")
> 
> ... so don't we need similar before returning ___p1 above in
> __smp_load_acquire() (and also matching the old read_barrier_depends())?
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +#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(x)	__smp_load_acquire(&(x))
> 
> As above, I don't see a memory barrier implied here, so this doesn't
> look quite right.

You're right, and Peter spotted the same thing off-list. I've reworked
locally so that the mb() ends up in __READ_ONCE() and __smp_load_acquire()
calles __READ_ONCE() instead of the other way round (which made more
sense before the rework in the merge window).

Will