linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v2)

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:	Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:47:43 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
 barrier (v2)

On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 18:56 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/kernel/sched.c	2010-01-06 23:23:34.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c	2010-01-08 18:17:44.000000000 -0500
> @@ -119,6 +119,11 @@
>   */
>  #define RUNTIME_INF	((u64)~0ULL)
>  
> +/*
> + * IPI vs cpumask broadcast threshold. Threshold of 1 IPI.
> + */
> +#define ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD	1
> +
>  static inline int rt_policy(int policy)
>  {
>  	if (unlikely(policy == SCHED_FIFO || policy == SCHED_RR))
> @@ -10822,6 +10827,124 @@ struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys = {
>  };
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT */
>  
> +/*
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all CPUs on SMP systems.
> + * Do not rely on implicit barriers in smp_call_function(), just in case they
> + * are ever relaxed in the future.
> + */
> +static void membarrier_ipi(void *unused)
> +{
> +	smp_mb();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handle out-of-mem by sending per-cpu IPIs instead.
> + */
> +static void membarrier_retry(void)
> +{
> +	int cpu;
> +
> +	for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> +		if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
> +			smp_call_function_single(cpu, membarrier_ipi,
> +						 NULL, 1);
> +	}
> +}


> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(membarrier)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	int cpu, i, cpu_ipi[ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD], nr_cpus = 0;
> +	cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
> +	int this_cpu;
> +
> +	if (likely(!thread_group_empty(current))) {
> +		rcu_read_lock();	/* protect cpu_curr(cpu)-> access */
> +		/*
> +		 * We don't need to include ourself in IPI, as we already
> +		 * surround our execution with memory barriers. We also
> +		 * don't have to disable preemption here, because if we
> +		 * migrate out of "this_cpu", then there is an implied memory
> +		 * barrier for the thread now running on "this_cpu".
> +		 */
> +		this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();

How is this not a bug?

> +		/*
> +		 * Memory barrier on the caller thread _before_ the first
> +		 * cpu_curr(cpu)->mm read and also before sending first IPI.
> +		 */
> +		smp_mb();
> +		/* Get CPU IDs up to threshold */
> +		for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> +			if (unlikely(cpu == this_cpu))
> +				continue;
> +			if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm) {
> +				if (nr_cpus == ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD) {
> +					nr_cpus++;
> +					break;
> +				}
> +				cpu_ipi[nr_cpus++] = cpu;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		if (likely(nr_cpus <= ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD)) {
> +			for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i++) {
> +				smp_call_function_single(cpu_ipi[i],
> +							 membarrier_ipi,
> +							 NULL, 1);
> +			}
> +		} else {
> +			if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> +				membarrier_retry();
> +				goto unlock;
> +			}
> +			for (i = 0; i < ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD; i++)
> +				cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_ipi[i], tmpmask);
> +			/* Continue previous for_each_cpu() */
> +			do {
> +				if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
> +					cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> +				cpu = cpumask_next(cpu,
> +						   mm_cpumask(current->mm));
> +				if (unlikely(cpu == this_cpu))
> +					continue;
> +			} while (cpu < nr_cpu_ids);
> +			preempt_disable();	/* explicitly required */

This seems to indicate the same.

> +			smp_call_function_many(tmpmask, membarrier_ipi, NULL,
> +					       1);
> +			preempt_enable();
> +			free_cpumask_var(tmpmask);
> +		}
> +unlock:
> +		/*
> +		 * Memory barrier on the caller thread _after_ we finished
> +		 * waiting for the last IPI and also after reading the last
> +		 * cpu_curr(cpu)->mm.
> +		 */
> +		smp_mb();
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +	}
> +#endif	/* #ifdef CONFIG_SMP */
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
>  
>  int rcu_expedited_torture_stats(char *page)

--
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/