* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-02-10 10:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2017-02-10 11:56 ` Hunt, David
2017-02-10 16:46 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-09-04 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Hunt, David @ 2017-02-10 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: Nikhil Rao, bruce.richardson, Konstantin Ananyev, dev
On 10/2/2017 10:53 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-02-10 10:39, Hunt, David:
>> On 9/2/2017 4:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2016-11-06 22:09, Thomas Monjalon:
>>>> 2016-09-29 18:34, Thomas Monjalon:
>>>>> 2016-09-30 02:54, Nikhil Rao:
>>>>>> The original code used movl instead of xchgl, this caused
>>>>>> rte_atomic64_cmpset to use ebx as the lower dword of the source
>>>>>> to cmpxchg8b instead of the lower dword of function argument "src".
>>>>> Could you please start the explanation with a statement of
>>>>> what is wrong from an user point of view?
>>>>> It could help to understand how severe it is.
>>>> Please, we need a clear explanation of the bug, and an acknowledgement.
>>> Should we close this bug?
>> I took a few minutes to look at this, and the issue can easily be
>> reproduced with a small snippet of code.
>> With the 'mov', the lower dword of the result is incorrect. This is
>> resolved by using 'xchgl'.
>>
>> void main()
>> {
>> uint64_t a = 0xff000000ff;
>>
>> rte_atomic64_cmpset( &a, 0xff000000ff, 0xfa000000fa);
>> printf("0x%lx\n", a);
>> }
>>
>> When using 'mov', the result is 0xfa00000000
>> When using 'xchgl', the result is 0xfa000000fa, as expected.
> This operation is used a lot in drivers for link status.
>
> I think we need to clearly explain what was the consequence of this bug.
Agreed. It's probably also worth noting that its only on the __PIC__ enabled
codepath so would have more of an affect on the distros.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-02-10 10:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-10 11:56 ` Hunt, David
@ 2017-02-10 16:46 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-03-09 15:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-04 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2017-02-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon
Cc: Hunt, David, Nikhil Rao, bruce.richardson, Konstantin Ananyev, dev
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:53:06 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> 2017-02-10 10:39, Hunt, David:
> >
> > On 9/2/2017 4:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-11-06 22:09, Thomas Monjalon:
> > >> 2016-09-29 18:34, Thomas Monjalon:
> > >>> 2016-09-30 02:54, Nikhil Rao:
> > >>>> The original code used movl instead of xchgl, this caused
> > >>>> rte_atomic64_cmpset to use ebx as the lower dword of the source
> > >>>> to cmpxchg8b instead of the lower dword of function argument "src".
> > >>> Could you please start the explanation with a statement of
> > >>> what is wrong from an user point of view?
> > >>> It could help to understand how severe it is.
> > >> Please, we need a clear explanation of the bug, and an acknowledgement.
> > > Should we close this bug?
> >
> > I took a few minutes to look at this, and the issue can easily be
> > reproduced with a small snippet of code.
> > With the 'mov', the lower dword of the result is incorrect. This is
> > resolved by using 'xchgl'.
> >
> > void main()
> > {
> > uint64_t a = 0xff000000ff;
> >
> > rte_atomic64_cmpset( &a, 0xff000000ff, 0xfa000000fa);
> > printf("0x%lx\n", a);
> > }
> >
> > When using 'mov', the result is 0xfa00000000
> > When using 'xchgl', the result is 0xfa000000fa, as expected.
>
> This operation is used a lot in drivers for link status.
>
> I think we need to clearly explain what was the consequence of this bug.
A bigger issue is why there are a huge number of copies of the same link code
in drivers. Definitely should be common code. Also why is cmpset used here
when a simple atomic_set would work as well for what was intended.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-02-10 16:46 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-03-09 15:39 ` Thomas Monjalon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-03-09 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger, Hunt, David, Nikhil Rao
Cc: bruce.richardson, Konstantin Ananyev, dev
2017-02-10 08:46, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:53:06 +0100
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
>
> > 2017-02-10 10:39, Hunt, David:
> > >
> > > On 9/2/2017 4:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2016-11-06 22:09, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > >> 2016-09-29 18:34, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > >>> 2016-09-30 02:54, Nikhil Rao:
> > > >>>> The original code used movl instead of xchgl, this caused
> > > >>>> rte_atomic64_cmpset to use ebx as the lower dword of the source
> > > >>>> to cmpxchg8b instead of the lower dword of function argument "src".
> > > >>> Could you please start the explanation with a statement of
> > > >>> what is wrong from an user point of view?
> > > >>> It could help to understand how severe it is.
> > > >> Please, we need a clear explanation of the bug, and an acknowledgement.
> > > > Should we close this bug?
> > >
> > > I took a few minutes to look at this, and the issue can easily be
> > > reproduced with a small snippet of code.
> > > With the 'mov', the lower dword of the result is incorrect. This is
> > > resolved by using 'xchgl'.
> > >
> > > void main()
> > > {
> > > uint64_t a = 0xff000000ff;
> > >
> > > rte_atomic64_cmpset( &a, 0xff000000ff, 0xfa000000fa);
> > > printf("0x%lx\n", a);
> > > }
> > >
> > > When using 'mov', the result is 0xfa00000000
> > > When using 'xchgl', the result is 0xfa000000fa, as expected.
> >
> > This operation is used a lot in drivers for link status.
> >
> > I think we need to clearly explain what was the consequence of this bug.
>
>
> A bigger issue is why there are a huge number of copies of the same link code
> in drivers. Definitely should be common code. Also why is cmpset used here
> when a simple atomic_set would work as well for what was intended.
I'm surprised that there is no progress on this issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-02-10 10:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-10 11:56 ` Hunt, David
2017-02-10 16:46 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-09-04 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-09-04 13:06 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-10-26 22:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2017-09-04 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: Hunt, David, Nikhil Rao, Konstantin Ananyev, dev
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:53:06AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-02-10 10:39, Hunt, David:
> >
> > On 9/2/2017 4:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-11-06 22:09, Thomas Monjalon:
> > >> 2016-09-29 18:34, Thomas Monjalon:
> > >>> 2016-09-30 02:54, Nikhil Rao:
> > >>>> The original code used movl instead of xchgl, this caused
> > >>>> rte_atomic64_cmpset to use ebx as the lower dword of the source
> > >>>> to cmpxchg8b instead of the lower dword of function argument "src".
> > >>> Could you please start the explanation with a statement of
> > >>> what is wrong from an user point of view?
> > >>> It could help to understand how severe it is.
> > >> Please, we need a clear explanation of the bug, and an acknowledgement.
> > > Should we close this bug?
> >
> > I took a few minutes to look at this, and the issue can easily be
> > reproduced with a small snippet of code.
> > With the 'mov', the lower dword of the result is incorrect. This is
> > resolved by using 'xchgl'.
> >
> > void main()
> > {
> > uint64_t a = 0xff000000ff;
> >
> > rte_atomic64_cmpset( &a, 0xff000000ff, 0xfa000000fa);
> > printf("0x%lx\n", a);
> > }
> >
> > When using 'mov', the result is 0xfa00000000
> > When using 'xchgl', the result is 0xfa000000fa, as expected.
>
> This operation is used a lot in drivers for link status.
>
> I think we need to clearly explain what was the consequence of this bug.
Resurrecting this old thread, with my analysis.
The issue is indeed as described above, the low dword of the result of
the 64-bit cmpset is incorrect, if the exchange takes place. This is due
to the incorrect source value not being placed in the ebx register.
What is meant to happen is that, if the old value (from EDX:EAX) matches
the value in the memory location, that memory location is written to by
the new value from ECX:EBX. However, for PIC code, we can't use EBX
register so the parameter is placed in EDI register instead. The first
line is meant to be moving the EDI value to EBX, but instead is doing
the opposite, of moving the current EBX value to EDI. This leads to the
incorrect result.
An alternative fix would be the following code:
asm volatile (
"push %%ebx;"
"mov %%edi, %%ebx;"
MPLOCKED "cmpxchg8b (%[dst]);"
"setz %[res];"
"mov %%ebx, %%edi;"
"pop %%ebx;"
: [res] "=a" (res) /* result in eax */
: [dst] "S" (dst), /* esi */
"D" (_src.l32), /* edi, copied to ebx */
"c" (_src.h32), /* ecx */
"a" (_exp.l32), /* eax */
"d" (_exp.h32) /* edx */
: "memory" ); /* no-clobber list */
However, the xchg to swap the registers at the start and swap them back
at the end is shorter.
Couple of other comments on this code area that should be taken into
account:
1. the indentation of the asm code looks wrong, and should probably be
fixed to make it more readable.
2. the comment on the "D" register is wrong as it refers to ebx
3. the fact that we can't use ebx, and instead use edi and swap twice
should be commented.
For the fix itself:
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Regards,
/Bruce
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-09-04 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
@ 2017-09-04 13:06 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-10-26 22:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Richardson @ 2017-09-04 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: Hunt, David, Nikhil Rao, Konstantin Ananyev, dev
+Correct email for Thomas.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 02:02:05PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:53:06AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2017-02-10 10:39, Hunt, David:
> > >
> > > On 9/2/2017 4:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2016-11-06 22:09, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > >> 2016-09-29 18:34, Thomas Monjalon:
> > > >>> 2016-09-30 02:54, Nikhil Rao:
> > > >>>> The original code used movl instead of xchgl, this caused
> > > >>>> rte_atomic64_cmpset to use ebx as the lower dword of the source
> > > >>>> to cmpxchg8b instead of the lower dword of function argument "src".
> > > >>> Could you please start the explanation with a statement of
> > > >>> what is wrong from an user point of view?
> > > >>> It could help to understand how severe it is.
> > > >> Please, we need a clear explanation of the bug, and an acknowledgement.
> > > > Should we close this bug?
> > >
> > > I took a few minutes to look at this, and the issue can easily be
> > > reproduced with a small snippet of code.
> > > With the 'mov', the lower dword of the result is incorrect. This is
> > > resolved by using 'xchgl'.
> > >
> > > void main()
> > > {
> > > uint64_t a = 0xff000000ff;
> > >
> > > rte_atomic64_cmpset( &a, 0xff000000ff, 0xfa000000fa);
> > > printf("0x%lx\n", a);
> > > }
> > >
> > > When using 'mov', the result is 0xfa00000000
> > > When using 'xchgl', the result is 0xfa000000fa, as expected.
> >
> > This operation is used a lot in drivers for link status.
> >
> > I think we need to clearly explain what was the consequence of this bug.
>
> Resurrecting this old thread, with my analysis.
>
> The issue is indeed as described above, the low dword of the result of
> the 64-bit cmpset is incorrect, if the exchange takes place. This is due
> to the incorrect source value not being placed in the ebx register.
>
> What is meant to happen is that, if the old value (from EDX:EAX) matches
> the value in the memory location, that memory location is written to by
> the new value from ECX:EBX. However, for PIC code, we can't use EBX
> register so the parameter is placed in EDI register instead. The first
> line is meant to be moving the EDI value to EBX, but instead is doing
> the opposite, of moving the current EBX value to EDI. This leads to the
> incorrect result.
>
> An alternative fix would be the following code:
>
> asm volatile (
> "push %%ebx;"
> "mov %%edi, %%ebx;"
> MPLOCKED "cmpxchg8b (%[dst]);"
> "setz %[res];"
> "mov %%ebx, %%edi;"
> "pop %%ebx;"
> : [res] "=a" (res) /* result in eax */
> : [dst] "S" (dst), /* esi */
> "D" (_src.l32), /* edi, copied to ebx */
> "c" (_src.h32), /* ecx */
> "a" (_exp.l32), /* eax */
> "d" (_exp.h32) /* edx */
> : "memory" ); /* no-clobber list */
>
> However, the xchg to swap the registers at the start and swap them back
> at the end is shorter.
>
> Couple of other comments on this code area that should be taken into
> account:
> 1. the indentation of the asm code looks wrong, and should probably be
> fixed to make it more readable.
> 2. the comment on the "D" register is wrong as it refers to ebx
> 3. the fact that we can't use ebx, and instead use edi and swap twice
> should be commented.
>
> For the fix itself:
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: fix bug in x86 cmpset
2017-09-04 13:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-09-04 13:06 ` Bruce Richardson
@ 2017-10-26 22:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-10-26 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Richardson, Nikhil Rao; +Cc: dev, Hunt, David, Konstantin Ananyev
04/09/2017 15:02, Bruce Richardson:
> Couple of other comments on this code area that should be taken into
> account:
> 1. the indentation of the asm code looks wrong, and should probably be
> fixed to make it more readable.
> 2. the comment on the "D" register is wrong as it refers to ebx
> 3. the fact that we can't use ebx, and instead use edi and swap twice
> should be commented.
A patch to fix all these comments would be welcome :)
> For the fix itself:
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Applied (more than one year after the submission), thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread