linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty

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: <ZjPBPWSSdE_VcH_V@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:37:17 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	syzbot <syzbot+b7c3ba8cdc2f6cf83c21@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty_fops

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 03:32:34PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 02:49:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 02:20:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 May 2024 at 14:06, Linus Torvalds
> > > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > > I'd love to see an extension where "const volatile" basically means
> > > exactly that: the volatile tells the compiler that it can't
> > > rematerialize by doing the load multiple times, but the "const" would
> > > say that if the compiler sees two or more accesses, it can still CSE
> > > them.
> 
> Except that "const volatile" already means "you cannot write to it,
> and reads will not be fused".  :-/
> 
> > No promises, other than that if we don't ask, they won't say "yes".
> > 
> > Let me see what can be done.
> 
> >From a semantics viewpoint __atomic_load_n(&x, __ATOMIC_RELAXED) would
> work for loading from x.  The compilers that I tried currently do not
> fuse loads, but they are allowed to do so.
> 

Yeah, I wonder the same, from what I read, "const volatile" seems to
be just a (non-volatile) relaxed atomic load.

Regards,
Boqun

> Or is there something I am missing that would make this not work?
> Aside from compilers not yet optimizing this case.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul