On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:58:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:46:05AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > So, I'm looking at the macro RELOC_HIDE() defined in
> > include/linux/compiler-gcc.h.
>
> > Am I the only one who was not aware of this gcc-specific macro?
>
>
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:46:05AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:04:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, this all is a bit on the insane side from a kernel viewpoint.
> >> But the paper you
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:46:05AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> So, I'm looking at the macro RELOC_HIDE() defined in
> include/linux/compiler-gcc.h.
> Am I the only one who was not aware of this gcc-specific macro?
It's one I regularly see, but had forgotten about in this context.
However;
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:04:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> Yes, this all is a bit on the insane side from a kernel viewpoint.
>> But the paper you found does not impose this; it has instead been there
>> for about 20 years,
On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:27:12AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:49:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> When I used
Hello Peter,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:49:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
>>> still broken.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
> > advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout. Is there some reason
> > we need that?
>
>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:04:27 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:56:57PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:45 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Yes, this all is a bit on the insane side from a kernel viewpoint.
> But the paper you found does not impose this; it has instead been there
> for about 20 years, back before C and C++ admitted to the existence
> of concurrency.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:56:57PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:45 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb
Hi Paul,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 06:28:45 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
When I used the argc
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I must confess to not being all that sympathetic to code that takes
> advantage of happenstance stack-frame layout. Is there some reason
> we need that?
Not that I'm aware; but if it gets this 'obvious' case wrong, I worry
what
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:49:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
> > > still broken.
> >
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
> > still broken.
>
> As requested on IRC:
What I asked was if you could get your GCC
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:30:08PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> When I used the argc variant, gcc-8 'works', but with s/argc/1/ it is
> still broken.
As requested on IRC:
$ gcc --version
gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:25:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:21:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Also; we need to find a GCC person to find/give us a knob to kill this
> > entire class of nonsense. This is just horrible broken shit:
> >
> >
> > ~/tmp# gcc
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:21:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also; we need to find a GCC person to find/give us a knob to kill this
> entire class of nonsense. This is just horrible broken shit:
>
>
> ~/tmp# gcc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -o ptr ptr.c ; ./ptr
> p=0x5635dd3d5034
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:45:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:30:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:55:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But if you know of any code in the Linux kernel that needs to compare
> > > pointers, one of
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:30:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:55:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > But if you know of any code in the Linux kernel that needs to compare
> > pointers, one of which might be in the process of being freed, please
> > do point me at
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:55:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But if you know of any code in the Linux kernel that needs to compare
> pointers, one of which might be in the process of being freed, please
> do point me at it.
I'm having the utmost difficulty of understanding why that would
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 09:55:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Again, if you know of any code in the Linux kernel that would have
> problems with aggressive optimizations based on pointer provenance,
> please let me know!
I've no clue what pointer provenance is to begin with.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:00:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:21:28PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane
> > > hardware.
> >
> > Not the first time I hear you calling this out. And inevitably, every
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:21:28PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane
> > hardware.
>
> Not the first time I hear you calling this out. And inevitably, every
> time, other slogans come to my mind: "C is not an assembly language",
> What I do object to is a model that's weaker than any possible sane
> hardware.
Not the first time I hear you calling this out. And inevitably, every
time, other slogans come to my mind: "C is not an assembly language",
"No features (ordering) without users", ...
For the record, I won't try
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Will Deacon wrote:
> Whilst I completely agree that relying on the ordering provided by "dep ;
> rfi" is subtle and error prone, having it forbid the outcome above appeals
> to a hardware-based mindset of how memory ordering works. In the kernel
> community, I would posit
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
>
> For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
> change:
>
> C dep-rfi
>
> { }
>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:14:56PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > Remove this subtle (and,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:14:56PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > Remove this subtle (and,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:57:00AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > Remove this subtle (and,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > > if necessary, but
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:26:04AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > > if necessary, but
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
> >
> > For
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
>
> For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
> change:
>
> C
Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
change:
C dep-rfi
{ }
P0(int *x, int *y)
{
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
34 matches
Mail list logo
