linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/atomic: atomic: Use arch_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: <20230130181514.GK5952@tellis.lin.mbt.kalray.eu>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 19:15:14 +0100
From:   Jules Maselbas <jmaselbas@...ray.eu>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
        Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernan.poncedeleon@...weicloud.com>,
        Paul Heidekrüger <paul.heidekrueger@...tum.de>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...ray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/atomic: atomic: Use arch_atomic_{read,set} in
 generic atomic ops

Hi Peter,

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 03:34:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:49:46PM +0100, Jules Maselbas wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:18:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 06:33:54PM +0100, Jules Maselbas wrote:
> > > 
> > > > @@ -58,9 +61,11 @@ static inline int generic_atomic_fetch_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)		\
> > > >  static inline void generic_atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)		\
> > > >  {									\
> > > >  	unsigned long flags;						\
> > > > +	int c;								\
> > > >  									\
> > > >  	raw_local_irq_save(flags);					\
> > > > -	v->counter = v->counter c_op i;					\
> > > > +	c = arch_atomic_read(v);					\
> > > > +	arch_atomic_set(v, c c_op i);					\
> > > >  	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);					\
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > This and the others like it are a bit sad, it explicitly dis-allows the
> > > compiler from using memops and forces a load-store.
> > Good point, I don't know much about atomic memops but this is indeed a
> > bit sad to prevent such instructions to be used.
> 
> Depends on the platform, x86,s390 etc. have then, RISC like things
> typically don't.
> 
> > > The alternative is writing it like:
> > > 
> > > 	*(volatile int *)&v->counter c_op i;
> > I wonder if it could be possible to write something like:
> > 
> >         *(volatile int *)&v->counter += i;
> 
> Should work, but give it a try, see what it does :-)
> 

I've made a quick test on godbolt[1] and I don't see a major difference
between the old version and the new version I propose. I am not very
familiar with both x86 and s390 architecture and I might have missed an
option for gcc to automagically generate "memops" instructions.

[1] https://godbolt.org/z/nrvvMs9b6

>From my understanding s390 has instructions to read a value from memory
and add a value, but still needs to be written by another instruction.

x86 is not using the generic atomic code, but has its own implementation
of atomic memory operations using lock {add,...} instructions.

The goal of the proposed patch is to make the generic code more correct:
| I don't think that's true; without READ_ONCE() the compiler could (but
| is very unlikely to) read multiple times, and that could cause problems.
explained by Mark Rutland here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y71LoCIl+IFdy9D8@FVFF77S0Q05N/

I still have some open questions:

 - Maybe in SMP the generic_atomic_* functions should use READ_ONCE
instead of arch_atomic_read, since only the "once" part is what is
needed, and the atomicity is done by the cmpxchg.

 - I have the feeling that in non-SMP we do not need the atomicity at all.


Thanks
-- Jules

> > I also noticed that GCC has some builtin/extension to do such things,
> > __atomic_OP_fetch and __atomic_fetch_OP, but I do not know if this
> > can be used in the kernel.
> 
> On a per-architecture basis only, the C/C++ memory model does not match
> the Linux Kernel memory model so using the compiler to generate the
> atomic ops is somewhat tricky and needs architecture audits.
> 
> 
> 
>