linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid compiler optimization in __resctrl_sched

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: <ZAeh8g0nr3IFRSVI@tucnak>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 21:43:30 +0100
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        reinette.chatre@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        peternewman@...gle.com, james.morse@....com, babu.moger@....com,
        ananth.narayan@....com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid compiler optimization in
 __resctrl_sched_in

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So per that summary, I'm going to nit-pick and state we very much want
> > CSE. CSE good. What we don't want it violating store-load ordering.
> 
> So you need to describe exactly what you *do* want.  There is no way to
> forbid most otherwise valid things.  But you can express pretty much all
> dependencies.
> 
> > Oh, geez, what a twisty tale that... So Linus knew back in '09 that "p"
> > was icky, but it sorta was the only thing and it 'worked' -- until now
> > :/
> 
> The "p" constraint is just like any other address_constraint, in most
> aspects.  Since this is very specific to "p", that limits what is going
> on to really just one thing.

Are we actually talking here about "p" constraint or about p/P (x86) modifiers
(asm ("%p0" : : "i" (42));)?

	Jakub