linux-kernel - Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)

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, 14 Dec 2015 20:36:49 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, david.daney@...ium.com
Subject: Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release
 semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:28:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:35:40PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:48:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill
> > > > > documented too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly
> > > > > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  A: SC
> > > > >  B: ACQ
> > > > >  C: Relaxed
> > > > > 
> > > > > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after
> > > > > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control
> > > > > dependency there.
> > > > 
> > > > Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency
> > > > because C consists only of stores?
> > > 
> > > Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the
> > > same is true for the unlock site.
> > 
> > I am probably missing quite a bit on this thread, but don't x86 MMIO
> > accesses to frame buffers need to interact with something more heavyweight
> > than an x86 release store or acquire load in order to remain confined
> > to the resulting critical section?
> 
> So on x86 there really isn't a problem because every atomic op (and
> there's plenty here) will be a full barrier.
> 
> That is, even if you were to replace everything with _relaxed() ops, it
> would still work as 'expected' on x86.
> 
> ppc/arm64 will crash and burn, but that's another story.
> 
> But the important point here was that osq_wait_next() is never relied
> upon to provide either the ACQUIRE semantics for osq_lock() not the
> RELEASE semantics for osq_unlock(). Those are provided by other ops.

OK, good to know!

							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/