linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] atomic,x86: Alternative atomic_*

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiDXWy8ekFDxVzCbudZv_3CqiWa9w+xO8mxJkk8SNmJCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:53:29 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] atomic,x86: Alternative atomic_*_overflow() scheme

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 8:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Shift the overflow range from [0,INT_MIN] to [-1,INT_MIN], this allows
> optimizing atomic_inc_overflow() to use "jle" to detect increment
> from free-or-negative (with -1 being the new free and it's increment
> being 0 which sets ZF).

Thanks.

However, I think you can simplify this further:

> This then gives the following primitives:
>
> [-1, INT_MIN]                                   [0, INT_MIN]
>
> inc()                                           inc()
>         lock inc %[var]                                 mov       $-1, %[reg]
>         jle     error-free-or-negative                  lock xadd %[reg], %[var]
>                                                         test      %[reg], %[reg]
>                                                         jle       error-zero-or-negative
>
> dec()                                           dec()
>         lock sub $1, %[var]                             lock dec %[var]
>         jc      error-to-free                           jle     error-zero-or-negative
>         jl      error-from-negative
>
> dec_and_test()                                  dec_and_test()
>         lock sub $1, %[var]                             lock dec %[var]
>         jc      do-free                                 jl      error-from-negative
>         jl      error-from-negative                     je      do-free

That "dec()" case could be just

        lock dec %[var]
        js error

because an underflow is an underflow - it doesn't matter if it's a "it
went to free" or "it became some other negative number".

That said - it may not matter - I'm not sure a plain "dec" is even a
valid operation on a ref in the first place. How could you ever
validly decrement a ref without checking for it being the last entry?

So I'm not sure "atomic_dec_overflow()" is even worth having as a
primitive, because I can't see any valid use for it. Is it for some
legacy case?

                  Linus