linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed

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]

Message-ID: <20070511145345.GA240@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2007 18:53:45 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make cancel_rearming_delayed_work() reliable

On 05/11, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > However, I agree, this smp_wmb() in insert_work() should die. We can
> > introduce "smp_mb__before_spinlock()" (no-op on x86 at least) to kill it.
> 
> Yeah, right, we allow cwq pointer to change without holding the lock.
> Although I still think that is where we should fix the problem.  Taking
> down CPU is a cold cold path.  We can afford a lot of overhead there.
> IMHO, if we can do that, it would be far better than memory barrier
> dance which tends to be difficult to understand and thus prove/maintain
> correctness.  I'll think about it more.

Yes I hate this barrier too. That is why changelog explicitly mentions it.

With some trivial code modifications we can move set_wq_data() from insert_work()
to __queue_work(), then

	void set_wq_data(work, cwq)
	{
		struct cpu_workqueue_struct *old = get_wq_data(work);

		if (likely(cwq == old))
			return;

		if (old)
			spin_lock(old->lock);

		atomic_long_set(&work->data, ...);

		if (old)
			spin_lock(old->lock);
	}

I can't say I like this very much, though. I'd prefer use smp_mb__before_spinlock().
Probably we can do something else.

But first I'd like to kill cwq_should_stop(). (Gautham, Srivatsa, you were
right, but I was blind, deaf, and stupid).

Oleg.

-
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/