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]

Date:   Sun, 6 Jun 2021 15:11:54 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()

On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 12:22:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 11:59 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think just
> > #define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("" : : "i" (__COUNTER__) : "memory")
> > should be enough
> 
> Oh, I like that. Much better.
> 
> It avoids all the issues with comments etc, and because it's not using
> __COUNTER__ as a string, it doesn't need the preprocessor games with
> double expansion either.
> 
> So yeah, that seems like a nice solution to the issue, and should make
> the barriers all unique to the compiler.

__COUNTER__ is a preprocessor thing as well, and it may not do all that
you expect.  Ex.:

===
#define fm() __COUNTER__
int gm(void) { return fm(); }
int hm(void) { return fm(); }

int fi(void) { return __COUNTER__; }
int gi(void) { return fi(); }
int hi(void) { return fi(); }
===

The macro version here works as you would hope, but the inlined one has
the same number everywhere.


Segher