Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: use memory clobber in bitops that touch arbitrary memory

[Alexander Potapenko]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:27 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 06:24:08PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > index d153d570bb04..20e4950827d9 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ clear_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >       } else {
> >               asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX __ASM_SIZE(btr) " %1,%0"
> >                       : BITOP_ADDR(addr)
> > -                     : "Ir" (nr));
> > +                     : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
> >       }
> >  }
>
> clear_bit() doesn't have a return value, so why are we now still using
> "+m" output ?
You're right, "m" should suffice. I'll update the patch.
By the way, now that we've added the memory barriers we can probably
remove the barrier() call from __clear_bit_unlock() and update the
comment accordingly.
For clear_bit() the memory barrier is missing on the IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)
path, so this one should be kept as is.

> AFAICT the only reason we did that was to clobber the variable, which
> you've (afaiu correctly) argued to be incorrect.
>
> So whould we not write this as:
>
>         asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX __ASM_SIZE(btr) " %[nr], %[addr]"
>                 : : [addr] "m" (*addr), [nr] "Ir" (nr)
>                 : "memory");
>
> ?
>
> And the very same for _all_ other sites touched in this patch.



-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-StraÃe, 33
80636 MÃnchen

GeschÃftsfÃhrer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg