linux-kernel - Re: 16-bit store instructions &c?

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: <289c7e10-06df-435b-a30d-c2a5bc4eea29@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:22:08 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 16-bit store instructions &c?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:48:41PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024, at 13:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Arnd,
> >
> > You know how it goes, give them an inch...
> >
> > I did get a request for 16-bit xchg(), but last I checked, Linux still
> > supports some systems that do not have 16-bit store instructions.
> >
> > Could you please let me know whether this is still the case?
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> The only one I'm aware of that can't do it easily
> is a configuration on 32-bit ARM that enables both 
> CONFIG_CPU_V6 and CONFIG_SMP, but I already wrote
> a patch that forbids that configuration for other
> reasons. I just need to send that patch.

Very good, and thank you!

> There is a related problem with ARM RiscPC, which
> uses a kernel built with -march=armv3, and that
> disallows 16-bit load/store instructions entirely,
> similar to how alpha ev5 and earlier lacked both
> byte and word access.

And one left to go.  Progress, anyway.  ;-)

> Everything else that I see has native load/store
> on 16-bit words and either has 16-bit atomics or
> can emulate them using the 32-bit ones.
> 
> However, the one thing that people usually
> want 16-bit xchg() for is qspinlock, and that
> one not only depends on it being atomic but also
> on strict forward-progress guarantees, which
> I think the emulated version can't provide
> in general.
> 
> This does not prevent architectures from doing
> it anyway.

Given that the simpler spinlock does not provide forward-progress
guarantees, I don't see any reason that these guarantees cannot be voided
for architectures without native 16-bit stores and atomics.

After all, even without those guarantees, qspinlock provides very real
benefits over simple spinlocks.

							Thanx, Paul