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: <YLpFHE5Cr45rWTUV@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:22:04 +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 04:13:57PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> In fact, maybe it's actually necessary to bundle the load and branch
> together. I looked at some of the examples of compilers breaking control
> dependencies from memory-barriers.txt and the "boolean short-circuit"
> example seems to defeat volatile_if:
> 
> void foo(int *x, int *y)
> {
>         volatile_if (READ_ONCE(*x) || 1 > 0)
>                 WRITE_ONCE(*y, 42);
> }  

Yeah, I'm not too bothered about this. Broken is broken.

If this were a compiler feature, the above would be a compile error. But
alas, we're not there yet :/ and the best we get to say at this point
is: don't do that then.