linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC cmpxchg 2/8] sparc: Emulate one-byte and two-byte cmpxchg

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: <1d1bc9d7-ff7d-4554-9c07-90d4e210a91d@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 21:17:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC cmpxchg 2/8] sparc: Emulate one-byte and two-byte
 cmpxchg

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:37:53AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 01:07:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > It does, IIRC.
> > 
> > > Would you like to do that patch?  If so, I would be happy to drop mine
> > > in favor of yours.  If not, could I please have your Signed-off-by so
> > > I can do the Co-developed-by dance?
> > 
> > Will do once I dig my way from under the pile of mail (sick for a week
> > and subscribed to l-k, among other lists)...
> 
> FWIW, parisc is in the same situation - atomics-by-cached-spinlocks.
> 've a candidate branch, will post if it survives build...

I am sure that it seemed like a good idea at the time.  ;-)

> Re parisc: why does it bother with arch_cmpxchg_local()?  Default is
> 	* save and disable local interrupts
> 	* read the current value, compare to old
> 	* if equal, store new there
> 	* restore local interrupts
> For 32bit case parisc goes for __cmpxchg_u32(), which is
> 	* if (SMP) choose the spinlock (indexed by hash of address)
> 	* save and disable local interrupes
> 	* if (SMP) arch_spin_lock(spinlock)
> 	* read the current value, compare to old
> 	* if equal, store new there
> 	* if (SMP) arch_spin_unlock(spinlock)
> 	* restore local interrupts
> In UP case it's identical to generic; on SMP it's strictly more work.
> Unless I'm very confused about cmpxchg_local() semantics, the
> callers do not expect atomicity wrt other CPUs, so why do we bother?

;-) ;-) ;-)

In any case, happy to replace my patches with yours whenever you have
them ready.

							Thanx, Paul