linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework

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:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:29:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle
 injection framework

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 02:05:39PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hi Daniel, Viresh,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:15:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-06-18, 12:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > (mb() are done in the atomic operations AFAICT).
> 
> To do my bit, not all atomic ops do/imply memory barriers; e.g.,
> 
>   [from Documentation/atomic_t.txt]
> 
>   - non-RMW operations [e.g., atomic_set()] are unordered
> 
>   - RMW operations that have no return value [e.g., atomic_inc()] are unordered

Quite so indeed.

> > AFAIU, it is required to make sure the operations are seen in a particular order
> > on another CPU and the compiler doesn't reorganize code to optimize it.
> > 
> > For example, in our case what if the compiler reorganizes the atomic-set
> > operation after wakeup-process ? But maybe that wouldn't happen across function
> > calls and we should be safe then.
> 
> IIUC, wake_up_process() implies a full memory barrier and a compiler barrier,
> due to:

Yes, the wakeup being a RELEASE (at least) is a fairly fundamental
property for causality. You expect the woken task to observe the
condition it got woken up on.