linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] rust: sync: Add memory barriers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aHGDgEFXIx-aPQ_V@tardis.local>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 14:34:56 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	lkmm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Mitchell Levy <levymitchell0@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] rust: sync: Add memory barriers

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:04:09PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 9:26 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 08:57:27PM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> On Fri Jul 11, 2025 at 3:32 PM CEST, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:57:48AM +0200, Benno Lossin wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> > +}
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +/// A full memory barrier.
> >> >> > +///
> >> >> > +/// A barrier that prevents compiler and CPU from reordering memory accesses across the barrier.
> >> >> > +pub fn smp_mb() {
> >> >> > +    if cfg!(CONFIG_SMP) {
> >> >> > +        // SAFETY: `smp_mb()` is safe to call.
> >> >> > +        unsafe {
> >> >> > +            bindings::smp_mb();
> >> >> 
> >> >> Does this really work? How does the Rust compiler know this is a memory
> >> >> barrier?
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > - Without INLINE_HELPER, this is an FFI call, it's safe to assume that
> >> >   Rust compiler would treat it as a compiler barrier and in smp_mb() a
> >> >   real memory barrier instruction will be executed. 
> >> >
> >> > - With INLINE_HELPER, this will be inlined as an asm block with "memory"
> >> >   as clobber, and LLVM will know it's a compiler memory barrier, and the
> >> >   real memory barrier instruction guarantees it's a memory barrier at
> >> >   CPU reordering level as well.
> >> >
> >> > Think about this, SpinLock and Mutex need memory barriers for critical
> >> > section, if this doesn't work, then SpinLock and Mutex don't work
> >> > either, then we have a bigger problem ;-)
> >> 
> >> By "this not working" I meant that he barrier would be too strong :)
> >> 
> >> So essentially without INLINE_HELPER, all barriers in this file are the
> >> same, but with it, we get less strict ones?
> >
> > Not the same, each barrier function may generate a different hardware
> > instruction ;-)
> >
> > I would say for a Rust function (e.g. smp_mb()), the difference between
> > with and without INLINE_HELPER is:
> >
> > - with INLINE_HELPER enabled, they behave exactly like a C function
> >   calling a C smp_mb().
> >
> > - without INLINE_HELPER enabled, they behave like a C function calling 
> >   a function that never inlined:
> >
> >   void outofline_smp_mb(void)
> >   {
> >     smp_mb();
> >   }
> >
> >   It might be stronger than the "with INLINE_HELPER" case but both are
> >   correct regarding memory ordering.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I meant with "not working" :)
> 

But be stronger is still "working" ;-)

BTW, replying you made me realize I should make these function
#[inline(always)] so thank you ;-)

Regards,
Boqun

> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>