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:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:23:02 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock

Hi Peter,

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:05:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static __always_inline void ticket_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +	u32 val = atomic_fetch_add_acquire(ONE_TICKET, lock);

I wonder, should these atomics be arch_atomic_*(), in case an arch_ or raw_
lock is used in noinstr code? The plain atomic_*() forms can have explicit
inline instrumentation.

I haven't seen any issues with qspinlock so far, and that also uses the
(instrumented) atomics, so maybe that's not actually a problem, but I'm not
sure what we intend here w.r.t.  instrumentability.

Thanks,
Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists