linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] locking/atomic: Implement atomic{,64,_long}_{fetch_,}{andnot_or}{,_relaxed,_acquire,

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: <YQKNu3WeMA/eJrLj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:15:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rui Wang <wangrui@...ngson.cn>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Rui Wang <r@....cc>, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...il.com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] locking/atomic: Implement
 atomic{,64,_long}_{fetch_,}{andnot_or}{,_relaxed,_acquire,_release}()

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:55:52AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

> Overall, I'm not thrilled to bits by extending the atomics API with
> operations that cannot be implemented efficiently on any (?) architectures
> and are only used by the qspinlock slowpath on machines with more than 16K
> CPUs.

My rationale for proposing this primitive is similar to the existence of
other composite atomic ops from the Misc (and refcount) class (as per
atomic_t.txt). They're common/performance sensitive operations that, on
LL/SC platforms, can be better implemented than a cmpxchg() loop.

Specifically here, it can be used to implement short xchg() in an
architecturally neutral way, but more importantly it provides fwd
progress on LL/SC, while most LL/SC based cmpxchg() implementations are
arguably broken there.

People seem to really struggle to implement that sanely.

It's such a shame we can't have the compiler generate sane composite
atomics for us..

> I also think we're lacking documentation justifying when you would use this
> new primitive over e.g. a sub-word WRITE_ONCE() on architectures that
> support those, especially for the non-returning variants.

Given the sub-word ordering 'fun', this might come in handy somewhere
:-) But yes, it's existence is more of a completeness/symmetry argument
than anything else.