linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] LKMM: Add ctrl_dep() macro for control dependency

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:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 14:09:59 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        j alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        luc maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
        linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] LKMM: Add ctrl_dep() macro for control dependency

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 08:19:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney:
> 
> >> > Yes, I know, we for sure have conflicting constraints on "reasonable"
> >> > on copy on this email.  What else is new?  ;-)
> >> >
> >> > I could imagine a tag of some sort on the load and store, linking the
> >> > operations that needed to be ordered.  You would also want that same
> >> > tag on any conditional operators along the way?  Or would the presence
> >> > of the tags on the load and store suffice?
> >> 
> >> If the load is assigned to a local variable whose address is not taken
> >> and which is only assigned this once, it could be used to label the
> >> store.  Then the compiler checks if all paths from the load to the
> >> store feature a condition that depends on the local variable (where
> >> qualifying conditions probably depend on the architecture).  If it
> >> can't prove that is the case, it emits a fake no-op condition that
> >> triggers the hardware barrier.  This formulation has the advantage
> >> that it does not add side effects to operators like <.  It even
> >> generalizes to different barrier-implying instructions besides
> >> conditional branches.
> >
> > So something like this?
> >
> > 	tagvar = READ_ONCE(a);
> > 	if (tagvar)
> > 		WRITE_ONCE_COND(b, 1, tagvar);
> 
> Yes, something like that.  The syntax only makes sense if tagvar is
> assigned only once (statically).
> 
> > (This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable syntax.)
> >
> > Or did I miss a turn in there somewhere?
> 
> The important bit is that the compiler emits the extra condition when
> necessary, and the information in the snippet above seems to provide
> enough information to optimize it away in principle, when it's safe.
> This assumes that we can actually come up with a concrete model what
> triggers the hardware barrier, of course.  For example, if tagvar is
> spilled to the stack, is it still possible to apply an effective
> condition to it after it is loaded from the stack?  If not, then the
> compiler would have to put in a barrier before spilling tagvar if it
> is used in any WRITE_ONCE_COND statement.

In all the weakly ordered architectures I am aware of, spilling to
the stack and reloading preserves the ordering.  The ordering from
the initial load to the spill is an assembly-language data dependency,
the ordering from the spill to the reload is single-variable SC, and
the ordering beyond that is the original control dependency.

						Thanx, Paul