[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41BFAD4B@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:15:25 +0000
From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To: Colin Vidal <colin@...dal.org>, "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "keescook@...omium.org"
<keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter"
<h.peter.anvin@...el.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, "David
Windsor" <dwindsor@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v3 PATCH 01/13] Add architecture
independent hardened atomic base
>Hi (again :-)) Elena, Hans,
> diff --git a/include/linux/atomic.h b/include/linux/atomic.h
<snip>
> +#ifndef atomic_cmpxchg_wrap
> +#define atomic_cmpxchg_wrap(...) \
> + __atomic_op_fence(atomic_cmpxchg_wrap, __VA_ARGS__) #endif
> #endif /* atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed */
>
>I have a problem here. With ARMv7 (without any of my patches), I have a
>implicit declaration of atomic_cmpxchg_wrap. Perhaps something like
> #ifndef atomic_cmpxchg_wrap_relaxed
> #define atomic_cmpxchg_wrap_relaxed atomic_cmpxchg_wrap
>is missing? I didn't follow the recent changes of that part, so I am
>not quite sure...
>Thanks!
>Colin
>In file included from ./include/linux/spinlock.h:406:0,
from ./include/linux/seqlock.h:35,
from ./include/linux/time.h:5,
from ./include/linux/stat.h:18,
from ./include/linux/module.h:10,
from net/ipv4/route.c:67:
>net/ipv4/route.c: In function ‘ip_idents_reserve’:
>./include/linux/atomic.h:459:20: error: implicit declaration of function ‘atomic_cmpxchg_wrap_relaxed’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
__atomic_op_fence(atomic_cmpxchg_wrap, __VA_ARGS__)
^
>./include/linux/atomic.h:62:9: note: in definition of macro ‘__atomic_op_fence’
> typeof(op##_relaxed(args)) __ret; \
^~
>net/ipv4/route.c:488:11: note: in expansion of macro ‘atomic_cmpxchg_wrap’
> } while (atomic_cmpxchg_wrap(p_id, old, new) != old);
Oh, I think this is because we don't have atomic_cmpxchg_wrap_relaxed defined neither atomic_xchg_wrap_relaxed. Wonder why this doesn't show up on x86, I did many builds without our x86 changes to verify.
Hans could you please handle this change today to unblock Colin?
Actually this brings us to the fact that we tried to stay away from various relaxed/acquire/release functions (in providing default wrap implementations), but it seems that they are also needed...
Sigh.. This grows bigger and bigger every day. I hope atomic doesn't plan to come with more functions in the nearest future :)
Kees, what is your opinion on relaxed/acquire/release coverage?
Best Regards,
Elena.
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.
