linux-kernel - RE: [GIT PULL] pipe: nonblocking rw for io

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cdc5a86a8e6549ff90bb09b99d4cb651@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 May 2023 10:16:53 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: RE: [GIT PULL] pipe: nonblocking rw for io_uring

From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 08 May 2023 09:39
> 
> On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 04:04:23PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> >
> > Am 4/25/2023 um 9:58 PM schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > > Yes, I think Mark is right. It's not that 'old' might be wrong - that
> > > doesn't matter because cmpxchg will work it out - it's just that 'new'
> > > might not be consistent with the old value we then use.
> >
> > In the general pattern, besides the potential issue raised by Mark, tearing
> > may also be an issue (longer example inspired by a case we met at the end of
> > the mail) where 'old' being wrong matters.
> 
> There is yet another pattern where it actually matters:
> 
> 	old = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
> 	do {
> 		if (cond(old))
> 			return false;
> 
> 		new = func(old);
> 	} while (!try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old, new));
> 
> 	return true;
> 
> In this case we rely on old being 'coherent'. The more obvious case is
> where it returns old (also not uncommon), but even if it just checks a
> (multi-bit) condition on old you don't want tearing.

It isn't as though READ_ONCE() is expensive.

For kernel/device driver code, while CSE is useful, you pretty
much always want the compiler to always do loads into local
variables.
It is rather a shame there isn't a compiler option that
avoids these unusual any annoying operations.

Since the current 'rules' seem to require READ_ONCE() and
WRITE_ONCE() be used as pairs, why not make the data 'volatile'?
That ought to be the same as using volatile casts on all accesses.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)