From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org,
oliver.upton@linux.dev, miko.lenczewski@arm.com,
kevin.brodsky@arm.com, ardb@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
lpieralisi@kernel.org, yangyicong@hisilicon.com,
scott@os.amperecomputing.com, joey.gouly@arm.com,
yuzenghui@huawei.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 RESEND 6/9] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:48:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aXDZGhFQDvoSwdc_@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aW6tix/GeqgXpTUN@e129823.arm.com>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 10:17:47PM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > +"2:\n"
> > > + _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(1b, 2b, %w0)
> > > + : "+r" (ret), "+Q" (*uaddr), "+r" (*oldval)
> > > + : "r" (newval)
> > > + : "memory");
> >
> > Don't you need to update *oldval here if the CAS didn't fault?
>
> No. if CAS doesn't make fault the oldval update already.
Sorry, it was the "+r" constraint with a pointer dereference that threw
me but you have the "memory" clobber so it looks like this will work.
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < FUTEX_MAX_LOOPS; i++) {
> > > + if (get_user(oval64.raw, uaddr64))
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> >
> > Since oldval is passed to us as an argument, can we get away with a
> > 32-bit get_user() here?
>
> It's not a probelm. but is there any sigificant difference?
I think the code would be clearer if you only read what you actually
use.
> > > + nval64.raw = oval64.raw;
> > > +
> > > + if (futex_on_lo) {
> > > + oval64.lo_futex.val = oldval;
> > > + nval64.lo_futex.val = newval;
> > > + } else {
> > > + oval64.hi_futex.val = oldval;
> > > + nval64.hi_futex.val = newval;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + orig64.raw = oval64.raw;
> > > +
> > > + if (__lsui_cmpxchg64(uaddr64, &oval64.raw, nval64.raw))
> > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > +
> > > + if (futex_on_lo) {
> > > + oldval = oval64.lo_futex.val;
> > > + other = oval64.lo_futex.other;
> > > + orig_other = orig64.lo_futex.other;
> > > + } else {
> > > + oldval = oval64.hi_futex.val;
> > > + other = oval64.hi_futex.other;
> > > + orig_other = orig64.hi_futex.other;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (other == orig_other) {
> > > + ret = 0;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!ret)
> > > + *oval = oldval;
> >
> > Shouldn't we set *oval to the value we got back from the CAS?
>
> Since it's a "success" case, the CAS return and oldval must be the same.
> That's why it doesn't matter to use got back from the CAS.
> Otherwise, it returns error and *oval doesn't matter for
> futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic().
Got it, but then the caller you have is very weird because e.g.
__lsui_futex_atomic_eor() goes and does another get_user() on the next
iteration instead of using the value returned by the CAS.
It would probably be clearer if you restructured your CAS helper to look
more like try_cmpxchg() and then the loop around it would be minimal.
You might need to distinguish the faulting case from the comparison
failure case with e.g. -EFAULT vs -EAGAIN.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-21 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-14 11:22 [PATCH v11 RESEND 0/9] support FEAT_LSUI Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 1/9] arm64: cpufeature: add FEAT_LSUI Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 2/9] KVM: arm64: expose FEAT_LSUI to guest Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 3/9] KVM: arm64: kselftest: set_id_regs: add test for FEAT_LSUI Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 4/9] arm64: Kconfig: Detect toolchain support for LSUI Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-19 15:50 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-19 15:54 ` Mark Brown
2026-01-20 11:35 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 5/9] arm64: futex: refactor futex atomic operation Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-19 15:57 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-19 22:19 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 6/9] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-19 16:37 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-19 22:17 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20 15:44 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-21 13:48 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2026-01-21 14:16 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 7/9] arm64: separate common LSUI definitions into lsui.h Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 8/9] arm64: armv8_deprecated: convert user_swpX to inline function Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-14 11:22 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 9/9] arm64: armv8_deprecated: apply FEAT_LSUI for swpX emulation Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-15 9:33 ` Marc Zyngier
2025-12-15 9:56 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-19 15:34 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-19 22:32 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20 9:32 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20 9:46 ` Mark Rutland
2026-01-20 10:07 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20 11:50 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-20 12:14 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-20 17:59 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-21 13:56 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-21 14:51 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-21 16:20 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-21 16:31 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-01-21 16:36 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-21 16:51 ` Yeoreum Yun
2025-12-31 10:07 ` [PATCH v11 RESEND 0/9] support FEAT_LSUI Yeoreum Yun
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=aXDZGhFQDvoSwdc_@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=miko.lenczewski@arm.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=scott@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yangyicong@hisilicon.com \
--cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox