From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8C2C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE44A214D8 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="X06xtzoH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CE44A214D8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47YRDN6yb7zDqxb for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:05:08 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org (client-ip=198.137.202.133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=peterz@infradead.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47YR8Q6jhfzDqwn for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:01:42 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zqWbT6EiHg3ERbPkcWc07MTBuZk581MfKCNd9+8m5rE=; b=X06xtzoHXbVmNMkpdX/RnCwMH Bmr3xrgAsNW/zC2cnwEWLqvPg1yNoTZfkNyS30BcfW/CNJCf8Oa9EqcbB+uInw+qeGV4DZcR4vrYv Xqb1k7GvsnS+PzTtoxioJ4GPIrAHvRuq9lNj1KlC9XcJQG0CzKeJxA3fpmpJEu9j0VZsr/OD9nNVF gERkk9nRzHOd01TO3r8RRZnFX9UhII0ulr3pp5lfaZhykPIRbf4jx89HYmsaNY+VQRX/8DkSalG/U 6iPAV7dKze56pInYudqpr3bTYraDfYMAdNKh8fx5ttz1jmHNr8m3NyQ5dFmbaP87lH5YMnp4lXPXa ux4JTyzuA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ifJPI-0002jE-CD; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:01:08 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9ACE300F29; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:59:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 20E1D20309147; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:01:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:01:05 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops)) Message-ID: <20191212080105.GV2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <87blslei5o.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <20191206131650.GM2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <875zimp0ay.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <875zimp0ay.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, dja@axtens.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:42:13PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > [ trimmed CC a bit ] > > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:46:11PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > ... > > you write: > > > > "Currently bitops-instrumented.h assumes that the architecture provides > > atomic, non-atomic and locking bitops (e.g. both set_bit and __set_bit). > > This is true on x86 and s390, but is not always true: there is a > > generic bitops/non-atomic.h header that provides generic non-atomic > > operations, and also a generic bitops/lock.h for locking operations." > > > > Is there any actual benefit for PPC to using their own atomic bitops > > over bitops/lock.h ? I'm thinking that the generic code is fairly > > optimal for most LL/SC architectures. > > Yes and no :) > > Some of the generic versions don't generate good code compared to our > versions, but that's because READ_ONCE() is triggering stack protector > to be enabled. Bah, there's never anything simple, is there :/ > For example, comparing an out-of-line copy of the generic and ppc > versions of test_and_set_bit_lock(): > > 1 : 1 : > 2 addis r2,r12,361 > 3 addi r2,r2,-4240 > 4 stdu r1,-48(r1) > 5 rlwinm r8,r3,29,3,28 > 6 clrlwi r10,r3,26 2 rldicl r10,r3,58,6 > 7 ld r9,3320(r13) > 8 std r9,40(r1) > 9 li r9,0 > 10 li r9,1 3 li r9,1 > 4 clrlwi r3,r3,26 > 5 rldicr r10,r10,3,60 > 11 sld r9,r9,r10 6 sld r3,r9,r3 > 12 add r10,r4,r8 7 add r4,r4,r10 > 13 ldx r8,r4,r8 > 14 and. r8,r9,r8 > 15 bne 34f > 16 ldarx r7,0,r10 8 ldarx r9,0,r4,1 > 17 or r8,r9,r7 9 or r10,r9,r3 > 18 stdcx. r8,0,r10 10 stdcx. r10,0,r4 > 19 bne- 16b 11 bne- 8b > 20 isync 12 isync > 21 and r9,r7,r9 13 and r3,r3,r9 > 22 addic r7,r9,-1 14 addic r9,r3,-1 > 23 subfe r7,r7,r9 15 subfe r3,r9,r3 > 24 ld r9,40(r1) > 25 ld r10,3320(r13) > 26 xor. r9,r9,r10 > 27 li r10,0 > 28 mr r3,r7 > 29 bne 36f > 30 addi r1,r1,48 > 31 blr 16 blr > 32 nop > 33 nop > 34 li r7,1 > 35 b 24b > 36 mflr r0 > 37 std r0,64(r1) > 38 bl <__stack_chk_fail+0x8> > > > If you squint, the generated code for the actual logic is pretty similar, but > the stack protector gunk makes a big mess. It's particularly bad here > because the ppc version doesn't even need a stack frame. > > I've also confirmed that even when test_and_set_bit_lock() is inlined > into an actual call site the stack protector logic still triggers. > If I change the READ_ONCE() in test_and_set_bit_lock(): > > if (READ_ONCE(*p) & mask) > return 1; > > to a regular pointer access: > > if (*p & mask) > return 1; > > Then the generated code looks more or less the same, except for the extra early > return in the generic version of test_and_set_bit_lock(), and different handling > of the return code by the compiler. So given that the function signature is: static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *p) @p already carries the required volatile qualifier, so READ_ONCE() does not add anything here (except for easier to read code and poor code generation). So your proposed change _should_ be fine. Will, I'm assuming you never saw this on your ARGH64 builds when you did this code ? --- diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h index dd90c9792909..10264e8808f8 100644 --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *p) unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr); p += BIT_WORD(nr); - if (READ_ONCE(*p) & mask) + if (*p & mask) return 1; old = atomic_long_fetch_or(mask, (atomic_long_t *)p); @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static inline int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *p) unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr); p += BIT_WORD(nr); - if (!(READ_ONCE(*p) & mask)) + if (!(*p & mask)) return 0; old = atomic_long_fetch_andnot(mask, (atomic_long_t *)p); diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h index 3ae021368f48..9baf0a0055b8 100644 --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(unsigned int nr, unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr); p += BIT_WORD(nr); - if (READ_ONCE(*p) & mask) + if (*p & mask) return 1; old = atomic_long_fetch_or_acquire(mask, (atomic_long_t *)p); @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned int nr, unsigned long old; p += BIT_WORD(nr); - old = READ_ONCE(*p); + old = *p; old &= ~BIT_MASK(nr); atomic_long_set_release((atomic_long_t *)p, old); }