linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu

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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 20:13:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So if you do
> 
>         seq = load_acquire(orig_seq);
>         load-data
> 
> then that acquire actually makes that first 'rmb' pointless. Acquire
> already guarantees that all subsequent memory operations are ordered
> wrt that read.
> 
> And 'acquire' is likely faster than 'rmb' on sane modern architectures.
> 
> On x86 it doesn't matter (rmb is a no-op, and all loads are acquires).
> 
> But on arm64, for example, you can do a 'ld.acq' in one instruction
> and you're done - while a rmb then ends up being a barrier (ok, the
> asm mnemonics are horrible: it's not "ld.acq", it's "ldar", but
> whatever - I like arm64 as an architecture, but I think they made the
> standard assembly syntax pointlessly and actively hostile to humans).
> 
> Of course then microarchitectures may end up doing basically the same
> thing, but at least technically the 'load acquire' is likely more
> targeted and more optimized.

Sure, acquire should work fine here.

> The second rmb is then harder to change, and that is going to stay an
> rmb ( you could say "do an acquire on the last data load, but that
> doesn't fit the sane locking semantics of a sequence lock).

Wouldn't even work, acquire allows an earlier load to pass it. It only
constraints later loads to not happen before.

> Of course, then the percpu case doesn't care about the SMP ordering,
> but it should still use an UP barrier to make sure things don't get
> re-ordered. Relying on our "percpu_read()" ordering other reads around
> it is *wrong*.

I'm happy to put barrier() in there if it makes you feel better.

But are you really saying this_cpu_read() should not imply READ_ONCE()?

If so, we should probably go audit a ton of code :/