linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile

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: <YLoxAOua/qsZXNmY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:56:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 02:44:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 01:31:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:44:00AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > Usage of volatile_if requires the @cond to be headed by a volatile load
> > > > (READ_ONCE() / atomic_read() etc..) such that the compiler is forced to
> > > > emit the load and the branch emitted will have the required
> > > > data-dependency. Furthermore, volatile_if() is a compiler barrier, which
> > > > should prohibit the compiler from lifting anything out of the selection
> > > > statement.
> > > 
> > > When building with LTO on arm64, we already upgrade READ_ONCE() to an RCpc
> > > acquire. In this case, it would be really good to avoid having the dummy
> > > conditional branch somehow, but I can't see a good way to achieve that.
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_LTO
> > /* Because __READ_ONCE() is load-acquire */
> > #define volatile_cond(cond)	(cond)
> > #else
> > ....
> > #endif
> > 
> > Doesn't work? Bit naf, but I'm thinking it ought to do.
> 
> The problem is with relaxed atomic RMWs; we don't upgrade those to acquire
> atm as they're written in asm, but we'd need volatile_cond() to work with
> them. It's a shame, because we only have RCsc RMWs on arm64, so it would
> be a bit more expensive.

Urgh, I see. Compiler can't really help in that case either I'm afraid.
They'll never want to modify loads that originate in an asm(). They'll
say to use the C11 _Atomic crud.