linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] alpha: cleanups for 6.10

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: Fri, 31 May 2024 04:56:28 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>, 
    Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, 
    Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
    Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>, 
    Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>, 
    Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, 
    Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 
    Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>, 
    Frank Scheiner <frank.scheiner@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] alpha: cleanups for 6.10

On Wed, 29 May 2024, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> >  Mind that the read-modify-write sequence that software does for sub-word 
> > write accesses with original Alpha hardware is precisely what hardware 
> > would have to do anyway and support for that was deliberately omitted by 
> > the architecture designers from the ISA to give it performance advantages 
> > quoted in the architecture manual.  The only difference here is that with 
> > hardware read-modify-write operations atomicity for sub-word accesses is 
> > guaranteed by the ISA, however for software read-modify-write it has to be 
> > explictly coded using the usual load-locked/store-conditional sequence in 
> > a loop.  I don't think it's a big deal really, it should be trivial to do 
> > in the relevant accessors, along with the memory barriers that are needed 
> > anyway for EV56+ and possibly other ports such as the MIPS one.
> 
> There shouldn't be any memory barriers required, and don't EV56+ have
> single-byte loads and stores?

 I should have commented on this in my original reply.

 You're the RCU expert so you know the answer.  I don't.  If it's OK for
successive writes to get reordered, or readers to see a stale value, then 
you don't need memory barriers.  Otherwise you do.  Whether byte accesses 
are available or not does not matter, the CPU *will* do reordering if it's 
allowed to (or more specifically, it won't do anything to prevent it from 
happening, especially in SMP configurations; I can't remember offhand if 
there are cases with UP).  Also adjacent byte writes may be merged, but I 
suppose it does not matter, or does it?

 NB MIPS has similar architectural arrangements (and a bunch of barriers 
defined in the ISA), it's just most implementations are actually strongly 
ordered, so most people can't see the effects of this.  With MIPS I know 
for sure there are cases of UP reordering, but they only really matter for 
MMIO use cases and not regular memory.

  Maciej