linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file

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:	Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:16:28 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and
 locking code into its own file

On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 16:01 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 12:48 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 12:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 09/30/2013 12:10 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:51 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>> On 09/28/2013 12:34 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> >>>>>> Also, below is what the mcs_spin_lock() and mcs_spin_unlock()
> >>>>>> functions would look like after applying the proposed changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> static noinline
> >>>>>> void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spin_node **lock, struct mcs_spin_node *node)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>>            struct mcs_spin_node *prev;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>            /* Init node */
> >>>>>>            node->locked = 0;
> >>>>>>            node->next   = NULL;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>            prev = xchg(lock, node);
> >>>>>>            if (likely(prev == NULL)) {
> >>>>>>                    /* Lock acquired. No need to set node->locked since it
> >>>>>> won't be used */
> >>>>>>                    return;
> >>>>>>            }
> >>>>>>            ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
> >>>>>>            /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
> >>>>>>            while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
> >>>>>>                    arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> >>>>>>            smp_mb();
> >>>> I wonder if a memory barrier is really needed here.
> >>> If the compiler can reorder the while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) check
> >>> so that the check occurs after an instruction in the critical section,
> >>> then the barrier may be necessary.
> >>>
> >> In that case, just a barrier() call should be enough.
> > The cpu could still be executing out of order load instruction from the
> > critical section before checking node->locked?  Probably smp_mb() is
> > still needed.
> >
> > Tim
> 
> But this is the lock function, a barrier() call should be enough to 
> prevent the critical section from creeping up there. We certainly need 
> some kind of memory barrier at the end of the unlock function.

I may be missing something.  My understanding is that barrier only
prevents the compiler from rearranging instructions, but not for cpu out
of order execution (as in smp_mb). So cpu could read memory in the next
critical section, before node->locked is true, (i.e. unlock has been
completed).  If we only have a simple barrier at end of mcs_lock, then
say the code on CPU1 is

	mcs_lock
	x = 1;
	...
	x = 2;
	mcs_unlock

and CPU 2 is

	mcs_lock
	y = x;
	...
	mcs_unlock

We expect y to be 2 after the "y = x" assignment.  But we
we may execute the code as

	CPU1		CPU2
		
	x = 1;
	...		y = x;  ( y=1, out of order load)
	x = 2
	mcs_unlock
			Check node->locked==true
			continue executing critical section (y=1 when we expect y=2)

So we get y to be 1 when we expect that it should be 2.  Adding smp_mb
after the node->locked check in lock code

           ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node;
           /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */
           while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked))
                    arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
           smp_mb();

should prevent this scenario.  

Thanks.
Tim
			
> 
> -Longman
> --
> 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/


--
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/