Re: [PATCH] docs/memory-barriers.txt: volatile is not a barrier() substitute

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:52:47PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> Add text to memory-barriers.txt and deprecated.rst to denote that
> volatile-qualifying an asm statement is not a substitute for either a
> compiler barrier (``barrier();``) or a clobber list.
> 
> This way we can point to this in code that strengthens existing
> volatile-qualified asm statements to use a compiler barrier.
> 
> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Example: https://godbolt.org/z/8PW549zz9
> 
>  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt    | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index b12df9137e1c..f3908c0812da 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1726,6 +1726,30 @@ of optimizations:
>       respect the order in which the READ_ONCE()s and WRITE_ONCE()s occur,
>       though the CPU of course need not do so.
>  
> + (*) Similarly, the compiler is within its rights to reorder instructions
> +     around an asm statement so long as clobbers are not violated. For example,
> +
> +	asm volatile ("");
> +	flag = true;
> +
> +     May be modified by the compiler to:
> +
> +	flag = true;
> +	asm volatile ("");
> +
> +     Marking an asm statement as volatile is not a substitute for barrier(),
> +     and is implicit for asm goto statements and asm statements that do not
> +     have outputs (like the above example). Prefer either:
> +
> +	asm ("":::"memory");
> +	flag = true;
> +
> +     Or:
> +
> +	asm ("");
> +	barrier();
> +	flag = true;
> +

I like this!

>   (*) The compiler is within its rights to invent stores to a variable,
>       as in the following example:
>  
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> index 388cb19f5dbb..432816e2f79e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst
> @@ -329,3 +329,20 @@ struct_size() and flex_array_size() helpers::
>          instance->count = count;
>  
>          memcpy(instance->items, source, flex_array_size(instance, items, instance->count));
> +
> +Volatile Qualified asm Statements
> +=================================

I would open with an example, like:

Instead of::

	volatile asm("...");

just use::

	asm("...");


> +
> +According to `the GCC docs on inline asm
> +https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Volatile`_:
> +
> +  asm statements that have no output operands and asm goto statements,
> +  are implicitly volatile.

Does this mean "volatile" _is_ needed when there are operands, etc?

> +
> +For many uses of asm statements, that means adding a volatile qualifier won't
> +hurt (making the implicit explicit), but it will not strengthen the semantics
> +for such cases where it would have been implied. Care should be taken not to
> +confuse ``volatile`` with the kernel's ``barrier()`` macro or an explicit
> +clobber list. See [memory-barriers]_ for more info on ``barrier()``.
> +
> +.. [memory-barriers] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> -- 
> 2.35.0.rc2.247.g8bbb082509-goog
> 

-- 
Kees Cook



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux