linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] refcount: provide same memory ordering guarantees as in atomic

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, 2 Nov 2017 11:40:35 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "ishkamiel@...il.com" <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <parri.andrea@...il.com>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        <dhowells@...hat.com>, <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refcount: provide same memory ordering guarantees as in
 atomic_t

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Lock functions such as refcount_dec_and_lock() &
> > refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock() Provide exactly the same guarantees as
> > they atomic counterparts. 
> 
> Nope. The atomic_dec_and_lock() provides smp_mb() while
> refcount_dec_and_lock() merely orders all prior load/store's against all
> later load/store's.

In fact there is no guaranteed ordering when refcount_dec_and_lock()  
returns false; it provides ordering only if the return value is true.  
In which case it provides acquire ordering (thanks to the spin_lock),
and both release ordering and a control dependency (thanks to the
refcount_dec_and_test).

> The difference is subtle and involves at least 3 CPUs. I can't seem to
> write up anything simple, keeps turning into monsters :/ Will, Paul,
> have you got anything simple around?

The combination of acquire + release is not the same as smp_mb, because 
they allow things to pass by in one direction.  Example:

C C-refcount-vs-atomic-dec-and-lock

{
}

P0(int *x, int *y, refcount_t *r)
{
	refcount_set(r, 1);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
	smp_wmb();
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}

P1(int *x, int *y, refcount_t *r, spinlock_t *s)
{
	int rx, ry;
	bool r1;

	ry = READ_ONCE(*y);
	r1 = refcount_dec_and_lock(r, s);
	if (r1)
		rx = READ_ONCE(*x);
}

exists (1:ry=1 /\ 1:r1=1 /\ 1:rx=0)

This is allowed.  The idea is that the CPU can take:

	Read y
	Acquire
	Release
	Read x

and execute the first read after the Acquire and the second read before 
the Release:

	Acquire
	Read y
	Read x
	Release

and then the CPU can reorder the reads:

	Acquire
	Read x
	Read y
	Release

If the program had used atomic_dec_and_lock() instead, which provides a 
full smp_mb barrier, this outcome would not be possible.

Alan Stern