linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] sched_clock: Expose struct clock_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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:12:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        "Ben Dooks (Codethink)" <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, jogness@...utronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] sched_clock: Expose struct clock_read_data

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:56:50AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:05:07AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> >
> ...
> >
> > Provide struct clock_read_data and two (seqcount) helpers so that
> > architectures (arm64 in specific) can expose the numbers to userspace.
> >
> ...
> >
> > +struct clock_read_data *sched_clock_read_begin(unsigned int *seq)
> > +{
> > +	*seq = raw_read_seqcount(&cd.seq);
> > +	return cd.read_data + (*seq & 1);
> > +}
> > +
> ...
> 
> Hmm, this seqcount_t is actually a latch seqcount. I know the original
> code also used raw_read_seqcount(), but while at it, let's use the
> proper read API for seqcount_t latchers: raw_read_seqcount_latch().
> 
> raw_read_seqcount_latch() has no read memory barrier though, and a
> suspicious claim that READ_ONCE() pairs with an smp_wmb() (??). But if
> its implementation is wrong, let's fix it there instead.

It's supposed to be a dependent load, so READ_ONCE() is sufficient.
Except, of course, the C standard has other ideas, so a compiler is
allowed to wreck that, but they mostly don't :-)