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  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:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:16:55 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu/kcsan 16/23] locking/atomics, kcsan: Add
 instrumentation for barriers

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 14:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:58:58PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > @@ -59,6 +60,7 @@ atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v)
> >  static __always_inline int
> >  atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> >  {
> > +     kcsan_mb();
> >       instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
> >       return arch_atomic_add_return(i, v);
> >  }
>
> This and others,.. is this actually correct? Should that not be
> something like:
>
>         kscan_mb();
>         instrument_atomic_read_write(...);
>         ret = arch_atomic_add_return(i, v);
>         kcsan_mb();
>         return ret;
>
> ?

In theory, yes, but right now it's redundant.

Because right now KCSAN only models "buffering", and no "prefetching".
So there's no way that a later instruction would be reordered before
this point. And atomic accesses are never considered for reordering,
so it's also impossible that it would  be reordered later.

Each kcsan_mb() is a call, so right now it makes sense to just have 1
call to be a bit more efficient.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists