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: <20210607181823.GH18427@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:18:23 -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 09:07:58PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2021, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> It's a "blockage instruction" after transitioning to RTL, but before that,
> on GIMPLE, the compiler sees it properly as a corresponding built-in, and
> may optimize according to given memory model. And on RTL, well, if anyone
> cares they'll need to invent RTL representation for it, I guess.

My question was if anything weaker is *valid* :-)  (And if so, why!)


Segher