linux-kernel - Re: Use of barriers in pvclock ABI

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: <48A04E30.9050105@qumranet.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:35:28 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>
CC:	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Use of barriers in pvclock ABI

Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com> wrote:
>   
>>  Hi,
>>
>>     
>>> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
>>> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
>>> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
>>> $0, (%esp)").
>>>
>>> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
>>> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
>>> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>>>
>>> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
>>> doing cross-cpu time updates?
>>>       
>> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
>> will ever happen.  IMHO it is fine to change that.
>>     
>
> Okay for guest vcpu, but what about physical cpus?
>
>   
> IIRC, the checks are there, and so strict, to account for the
> possiblity of the vcpu to be migrated to another cpu in the middle of
> the
>   


Migration implies an smp barrier (but not a compiler barrier, of 
course).  As to the the version number oddness check, I don't see how it 
can be necessary.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/