From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59546 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729358AbgGFQ0e (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 12:26:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:26:33 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO Message-ID: <20200706162633.GA13288@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20200630203016.GI9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200701114027.GO4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200701140654.GL9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200701150512.GH4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200701160338.GN9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200702082040.GB4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200702175948.GV9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200703131330.GX4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200703144228.GF9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200703144228.GF9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Marco Elver , Nick Desaulniers , Sami Tolvanen , Masahiro Yamada , Will Deacon , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kees Cook , clang-built-linux , Kernel Hardening , linux-arch , Linux ARM , Linux Kbuild mailing list , LKML , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" Message-ID: <20200706162633.OoLvoJYzVunUKTf8xzZO5_IR_EjqMIyoolSo0nOnrco@z> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:42:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:59:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:20:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 09:03:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: [ . . . ] > > Also, if C goes and specifies load dependencies, in any form, is then > > not the corrolary that they need to specify control dependencies? How > > else can they exclude the transformation. > > By requiring that any temporaries generated from variables that are > marked _Dependent_ptr also be marked _Dependent_ptr. This is of course > one divergence of _Dependent_ptr from the volatile keyword. > > > And of course, once we're there, can we get explicit support for control > > dependencies too? :-) :-) > > Keep talking like this and I am going to make sure that you attend a > standards committee meeting. If need be, by arranging for you to be > physically dragged there. ;-) > > More seriously, for control dependencies, the variable that would need > to be marked would be the program counter, which might require some > additional syntax. And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data dependencies over control dependencies. For one thing, there are a lot more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important. For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those from address/data dependencies. And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control dependencies. Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention. Thanx, Paul