linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of xchg

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: <e745c30e-71cc-49ff-c8bc-543bfbe0504d@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 14:13:45 +0000
From:   Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Jani Nikula' <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        'Andrzej Hajda' <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] linux/minmax.h: add non-atomic version of
 xchg


On 05/01/2023 13:34, David Laight wrote:
> From: Jani Nikula
>> Sent: 05 January 2023 13:28
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 09:38:12AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>>>> From: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
>>>>> Sent: 09 December 2022 15:49
>>>>>
>>>>> The pattern of setting variable with new value and returning old
>>>>> one is very common in kernel. Usually atomicity of the operation
>>>>> is not required, so xchg seems to be suboptimal and confusing in
>>>>> such cases. Since name xchg is already in use and __xchg is used
>>>>> in architecture code, proposition is to name the macro exchange.
>>>>
>>>> Dunno, if it is non-atomic then two separate assignment statements
>>>> is decidedly more obvious and needs less brain cells to process.
>>>> Otherwise someone will assume 'something clever' is going on
>>>> and the operation is atomic.
>>>
>>> Yes, this also my take. The i915 code that uses this to excess is decidely
>>> unreadable imo, and the macro should simply be replaced by open-coded
>>> versions.
>>>
>>> Not moved into shared headers where even more people can play funny games
>>> with it.
>>
>> My stand in i915 has been that the local fetch_and_zero() needs to
>> go. Either replaced by a common helper in core kernel headers, or open
>> coded, I personally don't care, but the local version can't stay.
>>
>> My rationale has been that fetch_and_zero() looks atomic and looks like
>> it comes from shared headers, but it's neither. It's deceptive. It
>> started small and harmless, but things like this just proliferate and
>> get copy-pasted all over the place.
>>
>> So here we are, with Andrzej looking to add the common helper. And the
>> same concerns crop up. What should it be called to make it clear that
>> it's not atomic? Is that possible?
> 
> old_value = read_write(variable, new_value);
> 
> But two statements are much clearer.

In a later thread there was more discussion on this and some new 
suggestions - exchange(), replace() or even take() sound fine to me. 
Last one is perhaps most specialized if it implies zeroing, which I at 
least assume it does.

All three are distant enough from atomic connotations of xchg. If that 
was a concern with __xchg, which I not sure it should be since there is 
"prior art" in the kernel for atomic vs non-atomic like set_bit and 
__set_bit.

My 2c, regardless of what name, that it is not something which is 
strictly needed, but a convenient syntactic sugar. (Exploded line counts 
with sometimes single use local variables are a bit meh.) And I am not 
really sure that open coding is more readable once the new pattern would 
be established. In short, if there can be swap there can be $insert_name 
too I guess.

Bonus points if needlessly atomic sites can be converted but identifying 
them is probably an exercise for a later phase.

Regards,

Tvrtko

P.S. FWIW my preference are either replace() or __xchg().