Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:36:45 +0000 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com> Subject: Re: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:05:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 06:31:18PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:43:00AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > (And now Greg went missing from the reply? Re-added...) > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:50 PM, David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 03:15:44PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > As far as refcount_t is concerned, I worry using cmpxchg will be too > > > costly, but it's worth benchmarking. > > > > If that does turn out to be a problem, we could allow architectures to > > provide their own implementations of the API, with a generic fallback > > otherwise, as we do for other features. > > Note that only LL/SC archs can do somewhat better. x86/s390/sparc64 etc > al must use cmpxchg, there's just no other way to get an actual atomic > inc/dec with over/under-flow detection. Sure; arm64 will also fall into that bucket with the ARMv8.1 atomics. > The proposed x86 implementation is non-atomic and therefore a complete > nonstarter. No disagreement there. Thanks, Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.