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 14:31:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Mark Rutland <>
Cc:     Will Deacon <>, Boqun Feng <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Waiman Long <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,,, Guo Ren <>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <>,
        Anup Patel <>,
        linux-riscv <>,
        Christoph Müllner <>,
        Stafford Horne <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking: Generic ticket lock

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 10:23:02AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.

So far it's not been a problem, and as you say, if we want to change
this, we need a larger audit/cleanup.

IIRC there's a potential problem in the arm idle code (noinstr'ing the
idle code is still on the TODO list somewhre, hampered by the need to
create more tooling).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists