linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic

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: <20080407060602.GE9309@duo.random>
Date:	Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:06:02 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic

On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 10:48:56PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > > +	rcu_assign_pointer(mm->emm_notifier, e);
> > > +	mm_unlock(mm);
> > 
> > My mm_lock solution makes all rcu serialization an unnecessary
> > overhead so you should remove it like I already did in #v11. If it
> > wasn't the case, then mm_lock wouldn't be a definitive fix for the
> > race.
> 
> There still could be junk in the cache of one cpu. If you just read the 
> new pointer but use the earlier content pointed to then you have a 
> problem.

There can't be junk, spinlocks provides semantics of proper memory
barriers, just like rcu, so it's entirely superflous.

There could be junk only if any of the mmu_notifier_* methods would be
invoked _outside_ the i_mmap_lock and _outside_ the anon_vma and
outside the mmap_sem, that is never the case of course.

> So a memory fence / barrier is needed to guarantee that the contents 
> pointed to are fetched after the pointer.

It's not needed... if you were right we could never possibly run a
list_for_each inside any spinlock protected critical section and we'd
always need to use the _rcu version instead. The _rcu version is
needed only when the list walk happens outside the spinlock critical
section of course (rcu = no spinlock cacheline exlusive write
operation in the read side, here the read side takes the spinlock big time).
--
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/