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

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, 10 Jan 2010 06:50:09 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.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

On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 21:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 09:12:58PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > >         < user space >
> > > 
> > >         < misses that CPU 2 is in rcu section >
> > 
> > 
> > If the TLB flush misses that CPU 2 has a threaded task, and does not
> > flush CPU 2s TLB, it can also risk the same type of crash.
> 
> But isn't the VM's locking helping us out in that case?
> 
> > >         [CPU 2's ->curr update now visible]
> > > 
> > >         [CPU 2's rcu_read_lock() store now visible]
> > > 
> > >         free(obj);
> > > 
> > >                                         use_object(obj); <=== crash!
> > > 
> > 
> > Think about it. If you change a process mmap, say you updated a mmap of
> > a file by flushing out one page and replacing it with another. If the
> > above missed sending to CPU 2, then CPU 2 may still be accessing the old
> > page of the file, and not the new one.
> > 
> > I think this may be the safe bet.
> 
> You might well be correct that we can access that bitmap locklessly,
> but there are additional things (like the loading of the arch-specific
> page-table register) that are likely to be helping in the VM case, but
> not necessarily helping in this case.


Then perhaps the sys_membarrier() should just do a flush_tlb()? That
should guarantee the synchronization, right?

-- Steve


--
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/