Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117)

From	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117)
Date	2015-11-18 16:40 +0100
Message-ID	<qwcZZ-4Lu-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <qvTXk-J9-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qw80i-1y5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qw9Sp-2Jt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qwa27-2NS-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qwcQi-4HC-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 03:21:19PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Will Deacon
> > Sent: 18 November 2015 12:28
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:11:25PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Will Deacon
> > > >   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-November/386094.html
> > >
> > > That patch forces a memory write-read and returns uninitialised stack
> > > for short reads.
> > 
> > Really? The disassembly looks fine to me. Do you have a concrete example
> > of where you think it goes wrong, please?
> > 
> > > Who knows what happens on big-endian systems.
> > 
> > The same thing as READ_ONCE? I'll test it there to make sure, but I
> > don't see a problem.
> 
> Ah, god, it is absolutely horrid. But probably right :-(

Yeah, I wasn't pretending it was nice :) FWIW, I've given it a reasonable
testing in both little-endian and big-endian configurations and it seems
to be happy.

> Do all the lda variants zero extend to 64 bits ?

Yes.

> If so maybe you could use a single 64 bit variable for the result of the read
> and then cast it to typeof(*p) to get the required sign extension for
> small integer types.

That was the original proposal from Arnd, but I want this to work with
structures smaller than 64-bit (e.g. arch_spinlock_t), so that's why
I decided to follow the approach laid down by READ_ONCE.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-17 10:00 +0100
  Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-17 17:50 +0100
    Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 18:10 +0100
    Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-17 18:10 +0100
      Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-17 18:20 +0100
        Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-17 20:20 +0100
          Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-18 11:20 +0100
            RE: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> - 2015-11-18 13:20 +0100
              Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-18 13:30 +0100
                RE: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> - 2015-11-18 16:30 +0100
                Re: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-18 16:40 +0100
                RE: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> - 2015-11-18 17:00 +0100
          RE: next build: 235 warnings 3 failures (next/next-20151117) David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> - 2015-11-18 11:30 +0100

csiph-web