linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 cmpxchg 12/13] sh: Emulate one-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]

Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 23:07:57 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	elver@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, dianders@...omium.org, pmladek@...e.com,
	arnd@...db.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 cmpxchg 12/13] sh: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 02:18:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> If you are only ever doing atomic read-modify-write operations on the
> byte in question, then agreed, you don't care about byte loads and stores.
> 
> But there are use cases that do mix smp_store_release() with cmpxchg(),
> and those use cases won't work unless at least byte store is implemented.
> Or I suppose that we could use cmpxchg() instead of smp_store_release(),
> but that is wasteful for architectures that do support byte stores.
> 
> So EV56 adds the byte loads and stores needed for those use cases.
> 
> Or am I missing your point?

arch/alpha/include/cmpxchg.h:
#define arch_cmpxchg(ptr, o, n)                                         \
({                                                                      \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret;                                       \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) _o_ = (o);                                   \
        __typeof__(*(ptr)) _n_ = (n);                                   \
        smp_mb();                                                       \
        __ret = (__typeof__(*(ptr))) __cmpxchg((ptr),                   \
                (unsigned long)_o_, (unsigned long)_n_, sizeof(*(ptr)));\
        smp_mb();                                                       \
        __ret;                                                          \
})

Are those smp_mb() in there enough?

I'm probably missing your point, though - what mix of cmpxchg and
smp_store_release on 8bit values?