linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] rust: types: Add read_once and write

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: <272fb0fa-bff7-4ccf-bea1-fba388c5d512@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:08:27 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        kent.overstreet@...il.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        elver@...gle.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rust: types: Add read_once and write_once

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:16:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:36:10AM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> 
> > There's two reasons that we are using volatile read/write as opposed to
> > relaxed atomic:
> > * Rust lacks volatile atomics at the moment. Non-volatile atomics are
> >   not sufficient because the compiler is allowed (although they
> >   currently don't) optimise atomics. If you have two adjacent relaxed
> >   loads, they could be merged into one.
> 
> Ah yes, that would be problematic, eg, if lifted out of a loop things
> could go sideways fast.
> 
> > * Atomics only works for integer types determined by the platform. On
> >   some 32-bit platforms you wouldn't be able to use 64-bit atomics at
> >   all, and on x86 you get less optimal sequence since volatile load is
> >   permitted to tear while atomic load needs to use LOCK CMPXCHG8B.
> 
> We only grudgingly allowed u64 READ_ONCE() on 32bit platforms because
> the fallout was too numerous to fix. Some of them are probably bugs.
> 
> Also, I think cmpxchg8b without lock prefix would be sufficient, but
> I've got too much of a head-ache to be sure. Worse is that we still
> support targets without cmpxchg8b.

Plus cmpxchg8b can be quite a bit heavier weight than READ_ONCE(),
in some cases to the point that you would instead use some other
concurrency design.

> It might be interesting to make the Rust side more strict in this regard
> and see where/when we run into trouble.

And maybe have some other name for READ_ONCE() that is permitted to tear.

> > * Atomics doesn't work for complex structs. Although I am not quite sure
> >   of the value of supporting it.
> 
> So on the C side we mandate the size is no larger than machine word,
> with the exception of the u64 on 32bit thing. We don't mandate strict
> integer types because things like pte_t are wrapper types.

On C-language atomics, people who have talked about implementing atomics
for objects too large for tear-free loads and stores have tended to want
ot invent locks.  :-(

							Thanx, Paul