netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708171505200.3666@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date:	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:42:26 +0530 (IST)
From:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <piggin@...erone.com.au>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	cfriesen@...tel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org,
	clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
 architectures



On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > > Also, why would you want to make these insane accessors for atomic_t
> > > types? Just make sure everybody knows the basics of barriers, and they
> > > can apply that knowledge to atomic_t and all other lockless memory
> > > accesses as well.
> > 
> > 
> > Code that looks like:
> > 
> > 	while (!atomic_read(&v)) {
> > 		...
> > 		cpu_relax_no_barrier();
> > 		forget(v.counter);
> > 		        ^^^^^^^^
> > 	}
> > 
> > would be uglier. Also think about code such as:
> 
> I think they would both be equally ugly,

You think both these are equivalent in terms of "looks":

					|
while (!atomic_read(&v)) {		|	while (!atomic_read_xxx(&v)) {
	...				|		...
	cpu_relax_no_barrier();		|		cpu_relax_no_barrier();
	order_atomic(&v);		|	}
}					|

(where order_atomic() is an atomic_t
specific wrapper as you mentioned below)

?

Well, taste varies, but ...

> but the atomic_read_volatile
> variant would be more prone to subtle bugs because of the weird
> implementation.

What bugs?

> And it would be more ugly than introducing an order(x) statement for
> all memory operations, and adding an order_atomic() wrapper for it
> for atomic types.

Oh, that order() / forget() macro [forget() was named such by Chuck Ebbert
earlier in this thread where he first mentioned it, btw] could definitely
be generically introduced for any memory operations.

> > 	a = atomic_read();
> > 	if (!a)
> > 		do_something();
> > 
> > 	forget();
> > 	a = atomic_read();
> > 	... /* some code that depends on value of a, obviously */
> > 
> > 	forget();
> > 	a = atomic_read();
> > 	...
> > 
> > So much explicit sprinkling of "forget()" looks ugly.
> 
> Firstly, why is it ugly? It's nice because of those nice explicit
> statements there that give us a good heads up and would have some
> comments attached to them

atomic_read_xxx (where xxx = whatever naming sounds nice to you) would
obviously also give a heads up, and could also have some comments
attached to it.

> (also, lack of the word "volatile" is always a plus).

Ok, xxx != volatile.

> Secondly, what sort of code would do such a thing?

See the nodemgr_host_thread() that does something similar, though not
exactly same.

> > on the other hand, looks neater. The "_volatile()" suffix makes it also
> > no less explicit than an explicit barrier-like macro that this primitive
> > is something "special", for code clarity purposes.
> 
> Just don't use the word volatile,

That sounds amazingly frivolous, but hey, why not. As I said, ok,
xxx != volatile.

> and have barriers both before and after the memory operation,

How could that lead to bugs? (if you can point to existing code,
but just some testcase / sample code would be fine as well).

> [...] I don't see
> the point though, when you could just have a single barrier(x)
> barrier function defined for all memory locations,

As I said, barrier() is too heavy-handed.

> rather than
> this odd thing that only works for atomics

Why would it work only for atomics? You could use that generic macro
for anything you well damn please.

> (and would have to
> be duplicated for atomic_set.

#define atomic_set_xxx for something similar. Big deal ... NOT.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html