linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 4/6] arm64: futex: refactor futex atomic operation

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: <aMiUX0O3MpdRyb3f@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 23:34:07 +0100
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
	oliver.upton@...ux.dev, joey.gouly@....com, james.morse@....com,
	ardb@...nel.org, scott@...amperecomputing.com,
	suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com, mark.rutland@....com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 4/6] arm64: futex: refactor futex atomic
 operation

Hi Catalin,

> > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 04:19:27PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> > > > index bc06691d2062..ab7003cb4724 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> > > > @@ -7,17 +7,21 @@
> > > >
> > > >  #include <linux/futex.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/stringify.h>
> > > >
> > > >  #include <asm/errno.h>
> > > >
> > > > -#define FUTEX_MAX_LOOPS	128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */
> > > > +#define LLSC_MAX_LOOPS	128 /* What's the largest number you can think of? */
> > >
> > > I just noticed - you might as well leave the name as is here, especially
> > > if in patch 6 you align down address and use CAS on a 64-bit value as
> > > per Will's comment (and it's no longer LLSC). I think renaming this is
> > > unnecessary.
> >
> > Okay. I'll restore to use origin name.
> > But I think LSUI wouldn't be used with CAS according to patch 6's
> > comments from you and additionally i think
> > chaning the CAS would make a failure because of
> > change of unrelated field. i.e)
> >
> > struct user_structure{
> >   uint32 futex;
> >   uint32 some_value;
> > };
> >
> > In this case, the change of some_value from user side could make a
> > failure of futex atomic operation.
>
> Yes but the loop would read 'some_value' again, fold in 'futex' and
> retry. It would eventually succeed or fail after 128 iterations if the
> user keeps changing that location. Note that's also the case with LL/SC,
> the exclusive monitor would be cleared by some store in the same cache
> line (well, depending on the hardware implementation) and the STXR fail.
> From this perspective, CAS has better chance of succeeding.

Oh. I see Thanks for insight ;)

>
> > So I think it would be better to keep the current LLSC implementation
> > in LSUI.
>
> I think the code would look simpler with LL/SC but you can give it a try
> and post the code sample here (not in a new series).

Okay. I'll try.

>
> BTW, is there a test suite for all the futex operations? The cover
> letter did not mention any.

with selftest's futex testcase, I've tested.
But Since there is no test for each operation even in LTP,
I tested it with additional test from me.

>
> --
> Catalin

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun