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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:48:05 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> To: peterz@...radead.org Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jakub@...hat.com, hjl.tools@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcsan: Add option to allow watcher interruptions On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 01:52:42PM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 03:07:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:21:31PM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:10:13PM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:39:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > This gets me the following for __rcu_read_lock(): > > > > > > > > > > 00000000000000e0 <__rcu_read_lock>: > > > > > e0: 48 8b 14 25 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%rdx > > > > > e7: 00 > > > > > e8: 8b 82 e0 02 00 00 mov 0x2e0(%rdx),%eax > > > > > ee: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax > > > > > f1: 89 82 e0 02 00 00 mov %eax,0x2e0(%rdx) > > > > > f7: c3 retq > > > > > f8: 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) > > > > > ff: 00 > > > > > > > > > > One might hope for a dec instruction, but this isn't bad. We do lose > > > > > a few instructions compared to the C-language case due to differences > > > > > in address calculation: > > > > > > > > > > 00000000000000e0 <__rcu_read_lock>: > > > > > e0: 48 8b 04 25 00 00 00 mov 0x0,%rax > > > > > e7: 00 > > > > > e8: 83 80 e0 02 00 00 01 addl $0x1,0x2e0(%rax) > > > > > ef: c3 retq > > > > > > > > Shees, that's daft... I think this is one of the cases where GCC is > > > > perhaps overly cautious when presented with 'volatile'. > > > > > > > > It has a history of generating excessively crap code around volatile, > > > > and while it has improved somewhat, this seems to show there's still > > > > room for improvement... > > > > > > > > I suppose this is the point where we go bug a friendly compiler person. > > > > Sounds very good! Do you have someone specific in mind? > > Jakub perhaps?, Cc'ed > > > > Having had a play with godbolt.org, it seems clang isn't affected by > > > this particular flavour of crazy, but GCC does indeed refuse to fuse the > > > address calculation and the addition. > > > > So there is hope, then! > > > > And even GCC's current state is an improvement. Last I messed with this, > > the ACCESS_ONCE()++ approach generated a load, a register increment, > > and a store. > > > > Do you still have the godbolt.org URLs? I would be happy to file > > a bugzilla. > > https://godbolt.org/z/rP8rYM Here you go! https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96327 Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists