| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 07:54:34 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com,
andrzej.hajda@...el.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
palmer@...belt.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC cmpxchg 8/8] riscv: Emulate one-byte and two-byte
cmpxchg
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 02:50:13AM -0400, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 07:15:40AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 14:39:50 PDT (-0700), paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> > > Use the new cmpxchg_emu_u8() and cmpxchg_emu_u16() to emulate one-byte
> > > and two-byte cmpxchg() on riscv.
> > >
> > > [ paulmck: Apply kernel test robot feedback. ]
> >
> > I'm not entirely following the thread, but sounds like there's going to be
> > generic kernel users of this now? Before we'd said "no" to the byte/half
> > atomic emulation routines beacuse they weren't used, but if it's a generic
> > thing then I'm find adding them.
> >
> > There's a patch set over here
> > <https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240103163203.72768-2-leobras@redhat.com/>
> > that implements these more directly using LR/SC. I was sort of on the fence
> > about just taking it even with no direct users right now, as the byte/half
> > atomic extension is working its way through the spec process so we'll have
> > them for real soon. I stopped right there for the last merge window,
> > though, as I figured it was too late to be messing with the atomics...
> >
> > So
> >
> > Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
> F.Y.I Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
I am carrying this in -rcu, but only for testing purposes, not for
inclusion into mainline. Not that I know of anyone testing -rcu on
RISC-V, but still, I wouldn't want to do anything do discourage such
testing.
The reason that this patch is no longer intended for inclusion is that it
has been obsoleted by a patch that provides native support for one-byte
and two-byte cmpxchg() operations. Which is even better! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > if you guys want to take some sort of tree-wide change to make the byte/half
> > stuff be required everywhere. We'll eventually end up with arch routines
> > for the extension, so at that point we might as well also have the more
> > direct LR/SC flavors.
> >
> > If you want I can go review/merge that RISC-V patch set and then it'll have
> > time to bake for a shared tag you can pick up for all this stuff? No rush
> > on my end, just LMK.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
> > > Cc: <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
> > > arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > index be09c8836d56b..4eaf40d0a52ec 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ config RISCV
> > > select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN
> > > select ARCH_HAS_VDSO_DATA
> > > select ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK if ACPI
> > > + select ARCH_NEED_CMPXCHG_1_2_EMU
> > > select ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX if ARCH_HAS_STRICT_KERNEL_RWX
> > > select ARCH_OPTIONAL_KERNEL_RWX_DEFAULT
> > > select ARCH_STACKWALK
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> > > index 2fee65cc84432..a5b377481785c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/bug.h>
> > >
> > > #include <asm/fence.h>
> > > +#include <linux/cmpxchg-emu.h>
> > >
> > > #define __xchg_relaxed(ptr, new, size) \
> > > ({ \
> > > @@ -170,6 +171,12 @@
> > > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret; \
> > > register unsigned int __rc; \
> > > switch (size) { \
> > > + case 1: \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u8((volatile u8 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > + break; \
> > > + case 2: \
> > > + break; \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u16((volatile u16 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > case 4: \
> > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> > > "0: lr.w %0, %2\n" \
> > > @@ -214,6 +221,12 @@
> > > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret; \
> > > register unsigned int __rc; \
> > > switch (size) { \
> > > + case 1: \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u8((volatile u8 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > + break; \
> > > + case 2: \
> > > + break; \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u16((volatile u16 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > case 4: \
> > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> > > "0: lr.w %0, %2\n" \
> > > @@ -260,6 +273,12 @@
> > > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret; \
> > > register unsigned int __rc; \
> > > switch (size) { \
> > > + case 1: \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u8((volatile u8 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > + break; \
> > > + case 2: \
> > > + break; \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u16((volatile u16 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > case 4: \
> > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> > > RISCV_RELEASE_BARRIER \
> > > @@ -306,6 +325,12 @@
> > > __typeof__(*(ptr)) __ret; \
> > > register unsigned int __rc; \
> > > switch (size) { \
> > > + case 1: \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u8((volatile u8 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > + break; \
> > > + case 2: \
> > > + break; \
> > > + __ret = cmpxchg_emu_u16((volatile u16 *)__ptr, __old, __new); \
> > > case 4: \
> > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( \
> > > "0: lr.w %0, %2\n" \
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists