linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/5] Add memory barriers and comments to rcu_check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:01:19 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@...radead.org, mmlnx@...ibm.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, dsmith@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	adrian.bunk@...ial.fi, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, ego@...ibm.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, rusty@....ibm.com,
	jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...sign.ru,
	jamesclhuang@...oo.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] Add memory barriers and comments to rcu_check_callbacks()

Add comments to the logic that infers quiescent states when interrupting
from either user mode or the idle loop.  Also add a memory barrier: it
appears that James Huang was in fact onto something, as the scheduler
is much less synchronization happy than it once was, so we can no longer
rely on its memory barriers in all cases.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reported-by: James Huang <jamesclhuang@...oo.com>
---

 rcuclassic.c |   30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.25-rc6-C1-call_rcu_sched/kernel/rcuclassic.c linux-2.6.25-rc6-C2-rcuclassic-fixes/kernel/rcuclassic.c
--- linux-2.6.25-rc6-C1-call_rcu_sched/kernel/rcuclassic.c	2008-03-16 17:45:17.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc6-C2-rcuclassic-fixes/kernel/rcuclassic.c	2008-04-08 09:30:16.000000000 -0700
@@ -502,10 +502,38 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int us
 	if (user ||
 	    (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
 				hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
+
+		/*
+		 * Get here if this CPU took its interrupt from user
+		 * mode or from the idle loop, and if this is not a
+		 * nested interrupt.  In this case, the CPU is in
+		 * a quiescent state, so count it.
+		 *
+		 * Also do a memory barrier.  This is needed to handle
+		 * the case where writes from a preempt-disable section
+		 * of code get reordered into schedule() by this CPU's
+		 * write buffer.  The memory barrier makes sure that
+		 * the rcu_qsctr_inc() and rcu_bh_qsctr_inc() are see
+		 * by other CPUs to happen after any such write.
+		 */
+
+		smp_mb();  /* See above block comment. */
 		rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu);
 		rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
-	} else if (!in_softirq())
+
+	} else if (!in_softirq()) {
+
+		/*
+		 * Get here if this CPU did not take its interrupt from
+		 * softirq, in other words, if it is not interrupting
+		 * a rcu_bh read-side critical section.  This is an _bh
+		 * critical section, so count it.  The memory barrier
+		 * is needed for the same reason as is the above one.
+		 */
+
+		smp_mb();  /* See above block comment. */
 		rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
+	}
 	raise_rcu_softirq();
 }
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/