linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/12] slub: Replace cmpxchg

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: <3C179EF2-0B8A-47F0-8FE6-3BF97A4442BA@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 09 Jan 2023 14:22:39 -0800
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, corbet@....net,
        will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        cl@...ux.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org,
        suravee.suthikulpanit@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, penberg@...nel.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, vbabka@...e.cz,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/12] slub: Replace cmpxchg_double()

On January 9, 2023 2:02:33 PM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:29 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> I ran into a ton of casting trouble when compiling kernel/fork.c which
>> uses this_cpu_cmpxchg() on a pointer type and the compiler hates casting
>> pointers to an integer that is not the exact same size.
>
>Ahh. Yeah - not because that code needs or wants the 128-bit case, but
>because the macro expands to all sizes in a switch statement, so the
>compiler sees all the cases even if only one is then statically
>picked.
>
>So the silly casts are for all the cases that never matter.
>
>Annoying.
>
>I wonder if the "this_cpu_cmpxchg()" macro could be made to use
>_Generic() to pick out the pointer case first, and then only use
>'sizeof()' for the integer types, so that we don't have this kind of
>"every architecture needs to deal with the nasty situation" code.
>
>Ok, it's not actually the this_cpu_cmpxchg() macro, it's
>__pcpu_size_call_return() and friends, but whatever.
>
>Another alternative is to try to avoid casting to "u64" as long as
>humanly possible, and use only "typeof((*ptr))" everywhere. Then when
>the type actually *is* 128-bit, it all works out fine, because it
>won't be a pointer. That's the approach the uaccess macros tend to
>take, and then they hit the reverse issue on clang, where using the
>"byte register" constraints would cause warnings for non-byte
>accesses, and we had to do
>
>                unsigned char x_u8__;
>                __get_user_asm(x_u8__, ptr, "b", "=q", label);
>                (x) = x_u8__;
>
>because using '(x)' directly would then warn when 'x' wasn't a
>char-sized thing - even if that asm case never actually was _used_ for
>that case, since it was all inside a "switch (sizeof) case 1:"
>statement.
>
>            Linus

I wrote a crazy macro for dealing with exactly this at one point, basically producing the "right type" to cast to. It would need to have 128-bit support added to it, but that should be trivial. It is called something like int_type() ... not in front of a computer right now so can't double check.