linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] asm/rwonce: Introduce [READ|WRITE]_ONCE() support for _

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: <CAFULd4Za4BQL+h9Xmra1TjB2oGGzPwru_y1xOrrAFSg==bfvgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:01:20 +0100
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, 
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, vasant.hegde@....com, 
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, jon.grimm@....com, 
	santosh.shukla@....com, pandoh@...gle.com, kumaranand@...gle.com, 
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] asm/rwonce: Introduce [READ|WRITE]_ONCE()
 support for __int128

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:55 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, at 13:30, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 04:22:57PM +0000, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>  include/asm-generic/rwonce.h   | 2 +-
> >>  include/linux/compiler_types.h | 8 +++++++-
> >>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > This patch needs Cc:
> >
> >       Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >       linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
> >
>
> It also needs an update to the comment about why this is safe:
>
> >> +++ b/include/asm-generic/rwonce.h
> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
> >>   * (e.g. a virtual address) and a strong prevailing wind.
> >>   */
> >>  #define compiletime_assert_rwonce_type(t)                                   \
> >> -    compiletime_assert(__native_word(t) || sizeof(t) == sizeof(long long),  \
> >> +    compiletime_assert(__native_word(t) || sizeof(t) == sizeof(__dword_type), \
> >>              "Unsupported access size for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE().")
>
> As far as I can tell, 128-but words don't get stored atomically on
> any architecture, so this seems wrong, because it would remove
> the assertion on someone incorrectly using WRITE_ONCE() on a
> 128-bit variable.

READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() do not guarantee atomicity for double
word types. They only guarantee (c.f. include/asm/generic/rwonce.h):

 * Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads or writes. The
 * compiler is also forbidden from reordering successive instances of
 * READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE, but only when the compiler is aware of some
 * particular ordering. ...

and later:

 * Yes, this permits 64-bit accesses on 32-bit architectures. These will
 * actually be atomic in some cases (namely Armv7 + LPAE), but for others we
 * rely on the access being split into 2x32-bit accesses for a 32-bit quantity
 * (e.g. a virtual address) and a strong prevailing wind.

This is the "strong prevailing wind", mentioned in the patch review at [1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241016130819.GJ3559746@nvidia.com/

FYI, Processors with AVX guarantee 128bit atomic access with SSE
128bit move instructions, see e.g. [2].

[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104688

Uros.