From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86: convert arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() to user_access_begin/user_access_end()
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 20:42:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200324204246.GH23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whTwaUZZ5Aj_Viapf2tdvcd65WdM4jjXJ3tdOTDmgkW0g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:19:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:08 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > And wouldn't it be lovely to get rid of the error return thing, and
> > > pass in a label instead, the way "usafe_get/put_user()" works too?
> > > That might be a separate patch from the "reorg" thing, though.
> >
> > OK, ret wouldn't be in the list of outputs that way and
> > *uaddr could become an input (we only care about the address,
> > same as for put_user), but oldval is a genuine output -
>
> Yes, initially we'd have to do the "jump to label" inside the macro,
> because gcc doesn't support asm goto with outputs.
>
> But that's no different from "unsafe_get_user()". We still pass it a
> label, even though we can't use it in the inline asm.
>
> Yet.
>
> I have patches to make it work with newer versions of clang, and I
> hope that gcc will eventually also accept the semantics of "asm goto
> with outputs only has the output on the fallthrough".
>
> So _currently_ it would be only syntactic sugar: moving the error
> handling inside the macro, and making it syntactically match
> unsafe_get_user().
>
> But long term is would allow us to generate better code too.
OK... BTW, I'd been trying to recall the reasons for the way
__futex_atomic_op2() loop is done; ISTR some discussion along
the lines of cacheline ping-pong prevention, but I'd been unable
to reconstruct enough details to find it and I'm not sure it
hadn't been about some other code ;-/
What we have there (fault handling aside) is
loop: eax = *uaddr;
v = eax | oparg;
lock cmpxchg v, *uaddr
if (!zf)
goto loop;
oldval = eax;
Why do we bother with reload? That cmpxchg is, after all,
t = *uaddr;
zf = (t == eax);
*uaddr = zf ? v : t;
eax = t;
so what would be wrong with doing
eax = *uaddr;
loop: v = eax | oparg;
lock cmpxchg v, *uaddr
if (!zf)
goto loop;
oldval = eax;
instead?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-24 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-23 18:50 [RFC][PATCHSET] futex uaccess cleanups Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] futex: arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() calling conventions change Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] sh: no need of access_ok() in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/7] [parisc, s390, sparc64] no need for access_ok() in futex handling Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/7] objtool: whitelist __sanitizer_cov_trace_switch() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] x86: convert arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() to user_access_begin/user_access_end() Al Viro
2020-03-23 19:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-24 2:08 ` Al Viro
2020-03-24 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-24 20:42 ` Al Viro [this message]
2020-03-24 20:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27 2:42 ` Al Viro
2020-03-27 3:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27 3:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27 4:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-27 4:35 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/7] generic arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() doesn't need access_ok() Al Viro
2020-03-23 18:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] x86: get rid of user_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() Al Viro
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=20200324204246.GH23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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