From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Micha
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 21:17:24 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1341786193.10862.1530580644566.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <010001645d90c295-71d0a2e6-d5ce-4b8a-a60d-5d66fe17c8b3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lameter cl@linux.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Platforms with 32 bit word size only guarantee atomicity of a 32 bit
>> > write or RMV instruction.
>> >
>> > Special instructions may exist on a platform to perform 64 bit atomic
>> > updates. We use cmpxchg64 f.e. on Intel 32 bit platforms to guarantee
>> > atomicity8.
>> >
>> > So use the macros that we have to guarantee 64 bit ops and you should be
>> > fine. See linux/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_32.h
>>
>> We are talking about user-space here. What we need is a single instruction
>> atomic store, similar to what WRITE_ONCE() does in the kernel. The discussion
>> is about whether doing the user-space equivalent of a WRITE_ONCE() to a u64
>> on a 32-bit architecture should be considered to provide single-copy atomicity
>> on the low 32 bits.
>
> Right. You would need to make this work for userspace. atomic64_32.h is a
> good reference as to which instructions provide 64 bit atomicity on 32
> bit platforms.
We only need to update a pointer, so we don't need 64-bit atomicity on
32-bit processes.
What we need is to ensure single-copy atomicity of the 32-bit pointer update
on the 32-bit process in a field read from the kernel as a __u64.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 21:17:24 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1341786193.10862.1530580644566.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <010001645d90c295-71d0a2e6-d5ce-4b8a-a60d-5d66fe17c8b3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
----- On Jul 2, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lameter cl@linux.com wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Platforms with 32 bit word size only guarantee atomicity of a 32 bit
>> > write or RMV instruction.
>> >
>> > Special instructions may exist on a platform to perform 64 bit atomic
>> > updates. We use cmpxchg64 f.e. on Intel 32 bit platforms to guarantee
>> > atomicity8.
>> >
>> > So use the macros that we have to guarantee 64 bit ops and you should be
>> > fine. See linux/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_32.h
>>
>> We are talking about user-space here. What we need is a single instruction
>> atomic store, similar to what WRITE_ONCE() does in the kernel. The discussion
>> is about whether doing the user-space equivalent of a WRITE_ONCE() to a u64
>> on a 32-bit architecture should be considered to provide single-copy atomicity
>> on the low 32 bits.
>
> Right. You would need to make this work for userspace. atomic64_32.h is a
> good reference as to which instructions provide 64 bit atomicity on 32
> bit platforms.
We only need to update a pointer, so we don't need 64-bit atomicity on
32-bit processes.
What we need is to ensure single-copy atomicity of the 32-bit pointer update
on the 32-bit process in a field read from the kernel as a __u64.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-03 1:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-02 22:31 [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields, validate user inputs Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 22:31 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 22:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-02 23:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-02 23:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-02 23:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 1:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 1:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 2:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 2:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 2:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 2:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:29 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:29 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 8:55 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 8:55 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2018-07-03 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 16:40 ` Andi Kleen
2018-07-03 16:40 ` Andi Kleen
2018-07-03 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 17:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-07-03 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 17:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 19:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 19:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 17:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-03 18:09 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:09 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-03 0:19 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:19 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 0:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2018-07-03 0:35 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 0:35 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-07-03 1:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2018-07-03 1:17 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1341786193.10862.1530580644566.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bmaurer@fb.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=davejwatson@fb.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.