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: <Z9U_yvs8Cl0IEAQd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:52:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/20] x86/barrier: Use alternative_io() in 32-bit
 barrier functions


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 11:42, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > +#define mb() alternative_io("lock addl $0,-4(%%esp)",                  \
> > +                           "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2,                 \
> > +                           ARG(),                                      \
> > +                           ARG(),                                      \
> > +                           ARG("memory", "cc"))
> 
> So all of these patches look like good cleanups to me, but I do wonder
> if we should
> 
>  (a) not use some naming *quite* as generic as 'ARG()'
> 
>  (b) make the asms use ARG_OUT/ARG_IN/ARG_CLOBBER() to clarify
> 
> because that ARG(), ARG(), ARGC() pattern looks odd to me.
> 
> Maybe it's just me.

Not just you, and I think the ARG_ prefix still looks a bit too 
generic-C to me, it should be something more specific and unambiguously 
asm() related, like:

	ASM_ARGS_IN(),
	ASM_ARGS_OUT(),
	ASM_ARGS_CLOBBER(),

or maybe even:

	ASM_CONSTRAINT_IN(),
	ASM_CONSTRAINT_OUT(),
	ASM_CONSTRAINT_CLOBBER(),

Because these asm()-ish syntactic constructs look better in separate 
lines anyway, and it's not like we are at risk of running out of 
letters in the kernel anytime soon.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ