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: <20210607175200.GG18427@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:52:00 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:01:39AM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> Uhh... I was not talking about some (non-existent) "optimizing linker".
> LTO works by relaunching the compiler from the linker and letting it
> consume multiple translation units (which are fully preprocessed by that
> point). So the very thing you wanted to avoid -- such barriers appearing
> in close proximity where they can be deduplicated -- may arise after a
> little bit of cross-unit inlining.
> 
> My main point here is that using __COUNTER__ that way (making things
> "unique" for the compiler) does not work in general when LTO enters the
> picture. As long as that is remembered, I'm happy.

Yup.  Exactly the same issue as using this in any function that may end
up inlined.

> > In the case of "volatile_if()", we actually would like to have not a
> > memory clobber, but a "memory read". IOW, it would be a barrier for
> > any writes taking place, but reads can move around it.
> > 
> > I don't know of any way to express that to the compiler. We've used
> > hacks for it before (in gcc, BLKmode reads turn into that kind of
> > barrier in practice, so you can do something like make the memory
> > input to the asm be a big array). But that turned out to be fairly
> > unreliable, so now we use memory clobbers even if we just mean "reads
> > random memory".
> 
> So the barrier which is a compiler barrier but not a machine barrier is
> __atomic_signal_fence(model), but internally GCC will not treat it smarter
> than an asm-with-memory-clobber today.

It will do nothing for relaxed ordering, and do blockage for everything
else.  Can it do anything weaker than that?


Segher