linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements

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:   Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:25:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        Maged Michael <maged.michael@...il.com>, gromer@...gle.com,
        Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:02:05PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> index 1ab3821f9e26..74f94fe4aded 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,11 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
>  	}
>  #endif
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
> +	 * before returning to user-space, after storing to rq->curr.
> +	 * Writing to CR3 provides that full memory barrier.
> +	 */
>  	if (real_prev == next) {
>  		VM_BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[prev_asid].ctx_id) !=
>  			  next->context.ctx_id);
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> index 3a19c253bdb1..766cc47c4d7c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
> @@ -38,6 +38,11 @@ static inline void mmgrab(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  extern void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *);
>  static inline void mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * The implicit full barrier implied by atomic_dec_and_test is
> +	 * required by the membarrier system call before returning to
> +	 * user-space, after storing to rq->curr.
> +	 */
>  	if (unlikely(atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_count)))
>  		__mmdrop(mm);
>  }
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 18a6966567da..7977b25acf54 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2658,6 +2658,12 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
>  	finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
>  
>  	fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
> +	/*
> +	 * When transitioning from a kernel thread to a userspace
> +	 * thread, mmdrop()'s implicit full barrier is required by the
> +	 * membarrier system call, because the current active_mm can
> +	 * become the current mm without going through switch_mm().
> +	 */
>  	if (mm)
>  		mmdrop(mm);
>  	if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) {


I would also put a comment in context_switch() that explains we either
pass through switch_mm() or do mmdrop().

And I think that for the weak archs that don't have native RELEASE we
actually rely on rq_unlock() for the smp_mb().

So there's 4 schemes:

 - switch_mm()/mmdrop() (x86,s390, sparc?)
 - finish_lock_switch() (weak, !release)
 - switch_to (arm64)
 - member arch hook (ppc)

And I don't think that's spelled out clearly enough.

> @@ -3299,6 +3305,9 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>  	 * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
>  	 * can't be reordered with __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
>  	 * done by the caller to avoid the race with signal_wake_up().
> +	 *
> +	 * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
> +	 * after coming from user-space, before storing to rq->curr.
>  	 */
>  	rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>  	smp_mb__after_spinlock();

Right, this is the only part that's actually trivial :-)