[PATCH v8 5/5] arm64: futex: support futex with FEAT_LSUI

[Yeoreum Yun]

Hi,

> +LSUI_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(add, ldtadd, al)
> +LSUI_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(or, ldtset, al)
> +LSUI_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(andnot, ldtclr, al)
> +LSUI_FUTEX_ATOMIC_OP(set, swpt, al)
> +
> +static __always_inline int
> +__lsui_cmpxchg64(u64 __user *uaddr, u64 *oldval, u64 newval)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	asm volatile("// __lsui_cmpxchg64\n"
> +	__LSUI_PREAMBLE
> +"1:	casalt	%x2, %x3, %1\n"
> +"2:\n"
> +	_ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(1b, 2b, %w0)
> +	: "+r" (ret), "+Q" (*uaddr), "+r" (*oldval)
> +	: "r" (newval)
> +	: "memory");
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline int
> +__lsui_cmpxchg32(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 oldval, u32 newval, u32 *oval)
> +{
> +	u64 __user *uaddr_al;
> +	u64 oval64, nval64, tmp;
> +	static const u64 hi_mask = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN) ?
> +		GENMASK_U64(63, 32): GENMASK_U64(31, 0);
> +	static const u8 hi_shift = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN) ? 32 : 0;
> +	static const u8 lo_shift = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN) ? 0 : 32;
> +
> +	uaddr_al = (u64 __user *) PTR_ALIGN_DOWN(uaddr, sizeof(u64));
> +	if (get_user(oval64, uaddr_al))
> +		return -EFAULT;
> +
> +	if ((u32 __user *)uaddr_al != uaddr) {
> +		nval64 = ((oval64 & ~hi_mask) | ((u64)newval << hi_shift));
> +		oval64 = ((oval64 & ~hi_mask) | ((u64)oldval << hi_shift));
> +	} else {
> +		nval64 = ((oval64 & hi_mask) | ((u64)newval << lo_shift));
> +		oval64 = ((oval64 & hi_mask) | ((u64)oldval << lo_shift));
> +	}
> +
> +	tmp = oval64;
> +
> +	if (__lsui_cmpxchg64(uaddr_al, &oval64, nval64))
> +		return -EFAULT;
> +
> +	if (tmp != oval64)
> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +
> +	*oval = oldval;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

While I see the code I couldn't erase some suspicion
because of below questions...:

1. Suppose there is structure:

struct s_test {
  u32 futex;
  u32 others;
};

Before CPU0 executing casalt futex, CPU1 executes the store32_rel() on
others. Then, Can CPU0 can observe the CPU1's store32_rel()
since casalt operates with &futex, but CPU1 operates with &others.

CPU0                                          CPU1
...                                           store32_rel(&s_test->others);

/// can this see CPU1's modification?
casalt(..., ..., &s_test->futex);


2. Suppose there is structure:

struct s_test {
  u32 others;
  u32 futex;
};

Then, can below "ldtr" be reordered after casalt?


  ldtr(&s_test->futex);
  ...
  casalt(..., ..., &s_test->others);


I think the both cases can break the memory consistency unintensionaly
in the view of user...

Well, the dmb ish; could be solved the above problem before casalt,
However, It seems it's much better to return former ll/sc method...?

Thanks!


--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun