[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200706183510.GA23766@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 19:35:11 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when
CLANG_LTO=y
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 05:08:20PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:37:34PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..515e360b01a1
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef __ASM_RWONCE_H
> > +#define __ASM_RWONCE_H
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CLANG_LTO
> > +
> > +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> > +#include <asm/alternative-macros.h>
> > +
> > +#ifndef BUILD_VDSO
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_AS_HAS_LDAPR
> > +#define __LOAD_RCPC(sfx, regs...) \
> > + ALTERNATIVE( \
> > + "ldar" #sfx "\t" #regs, \
>
> ^ Should this be here? It seems that READ_ONCE() will actually read
> twice... even if that doesn't actually conflict with the required
> semantics of READ_ONCE(), it looks odd.
It's patched at runtime, so it's either LDAR or LDAPR.
> Making a direct link between LTO and the memory model also seems highly
> spurious (as discussed in the other subthread) so can we have a comment
> explaining the reasoning?
Sure, although like I say, this is more about helping to progress that
conversation.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists