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:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:46:45 -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-C1-call_rcu_sched/kernel/rcuclassic.c linux-2.6.25-C2-rcuclassic-fixes/kernel/rcuclassic.c
--- linux-2.6.25-C1-call_rcu_sched/kernel/rcuclassic.c	2008-04-16 19:49:44.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.25-C2-rcuclassic-fixes/kernel/rcuclassic.c	2008-04-21 10:50:12.000000000 -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/