linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/8] mm: add overflow and underflow checks for page->

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, 28 Oct 2021 12:08:24 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        schmitzmic@...il.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, weixugc@...gle.com,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] mm: add overflow and underflow checks for page->_refcount

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:22 AM Pasha Tatashin
<pasha.tatashin@...een.com> wrote:
>
> > I found some atomic_add/dec are replaced with atomic_add/dec_return,
>
> I am going to replace -return variants with -fetch variants, potentially -fetch
>
> > those helpers with return value imply a full memory barrier around it, but
> > others without return value do not. Do you have any numbers to show
> > the impact? Maybe atomic_add/dec_return_relaxed can help this.
>
> The generic variant uses  arch_cmpxchg() for all atomic variants
> without any extra barriers. Therefore, on platforms that use generic
> implementations there won't be performance differences except for an
> extra branch that checks results when VM_BUG_ON is enabled.
>
> On x86 the difference between the two is the following
>
> atomic_add:
>    lock add %eax,(%rsi)
>
> atomic_fetch_add:
>    lock xadd %eax,(%rsi)
>
> atomic_fetch_add_relaxed:
>    lock xadd %eax,(%rsi)
>
> No differences between relaxed and non relaxed variants. However, we

Right. There is no difference on x86. Maybe there are differences in
other architectures.

> used lock xadd instead of lock add. I am not sure if the performance
> difference is going to be different.
>
> Pasha