Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1574297603-198156-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1574297603-198156-7-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <20191121060444.GA55272@gmail.com>
 <20191121130153.GS4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20191121171214.GD12042@gmail.com>
 <3481175cbe14457a947f934343946d52@AcuMS.aculab.com>
In-Reply-To: <3481175cbe14457a947f934343946d52@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:51:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrW+qxrE633qetS4c1Rn2AX_hk5OgneZRtoZPFN1J395Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
 kernel parameter
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:43 AM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Ingo Molnar
> > Sent: 21 November 2019 17:12
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> ...
> > > This feature MUST be default enabled, otherwise everything will
> > > be/remain broken and we'll end up in the situation where you can't use
> > > it even if you wanted to.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Before it can be enabled by default someone needs to go through the
> kernel and fix all the code that abuses the 'bit' functions by using them
> on int[] instead of long[].
>
> I've only seen one fix go through for one use case of one piece of code
> that repeatedly uses potentially misaligned int[] arrays for bitmasks.
>

Can we really not just change the lock asm to use 32-bit accesses for
set_bit(), etc?  Sure, it will fail if the bit index is greater than
2^32, but that seems nuts.

(Why the *hell* do the bitops use long anyway?  They're *bit masks*
for crying out loud.  As in, users generally want to operate on fixed
numbers of bits.)

--Andy