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]

Message-ID: <YH1Ayc6UncJ32uQZ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:35:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...gle.com>, 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,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> https://godbolt.org/z/85xoPxeE5

That wants _Atomic on the seq definition for clang.

> void writer(void)
> {
>     atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_relaxed);
>     atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire);
> 
>     X = 1;
>     Y = 2;
> 
>     atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_release);
> }
> 
> gives:
> 
> writer:
>         adrp    x1, .LANCHOR0
>         add     x0, x1, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
>         ldr     w2, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
>         add     w2, w2, 1
>         str     w2, [x0]
>         dmb     ishld
>         ldr     w1, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
>         mov     w3, 1
>         mov     w2, 2
>         stp     w3, w2, [x0, 4]
>         add     w1, w1, w3
>         stlr    w1, [x0]
>         ret
> 
> Which, afaict, is completely buggered. What it seems to be doing is
> turning the seq load into a load-acquire, but what we really need is to
> make sure the seq store (increment) is ordered before the other stores.

Put differently, what you seem to want is store-acquire, but there ain't
no such thing.