linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

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:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 16:51:58 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>
Cc:     ojeda@...nel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

On 16/04/21 09:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, the obvious example would be seqlocks. C11 can't do them

Sure it can.  C11 requires annotating with (the equivalent of) READ_ONCE 
all reads of seqlock-protected fields, but the memory model supports 
seqlocks just fine.

> Simlar thing for RCU; C11 can't optimally do that

Technically if you know what you're doing (i.e. that you're not on 
Alpha) you can do RCU using a relaxed load followed by an 
atomic_signal_fence(memory_order_consume).  Which I agree is horrible 
and not entirely within the standard, but it works in practice.  The 
Linux implementation of memory barriers, atomic RMW primitives, 
load-acquire/store-release etc. is also completely outside the standard, 
so it's not much different and more portable.

The only thing that I really, really miss when programming with C11 
atomics is smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic().

Paolo