linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp

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:	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:26:21 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking
 cycles

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 07:28:16PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
> 
> my example was bad, let's continue with your example.
> 
> And: If sem_lock() needs another smp_xmb(), then we must add it:
> Some apps do not have a user space hot path, i.e. it seems that on
> some setups, we have millions of calls per second.
> If there is a race, then it will happen.
> 
> I've tried to merge your example:
> >
> > int X = 0, Y = 0;
> >
> > void func(void)
> > {
> >     bool ll = rand();
> >
> >     if (ll) {
> >         spin_lock(&local);
> >         if (!spin_is_locked(&global))
> >             goto done;
> >         spin_unlock(&local);
> >     }
> >     ll = false;
> >     spin_lock(&global);
> >     spin_unlock_wait(&local);
> > done:
> >     smp_rmb(); <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >     BUG_ON(X != Y);
> >
> >     ++X; ++Y;
> >
> >     if (ll)
> >         spin_unlock(&local);
> >     else
> >         spin_unlock(&global);
> > }
> I agree, we need the smp_rmb().
> I'll write a patch.
> 
> >We need the full barrier to serialize STORE's as well, but probably we can
> >rely on control dependancy and thus we only need rmb().
> Do we need a full barrier or not?
> 
> I don't manage to create a proper line of reasoning.

This has to be one of the more bizarre forms of Dekker's algorithm
that I have seen.  ;-)

I am going to have to put this through one of the tools...

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/