linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with preemptible kernel and CPU hotplug

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, 14 Aug 2008 13:30:21 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with
	preemptible kernel and CPU hotplug

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@...p.org) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com) wrote:
>>   
>>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>     
>>>> I can't argue about the benefit of using VM CPU pinning to manage
>>>> resources because I don't use it myself, but I ran some tests out of
>>>> curiosity to find if uncontended locks were that cheap, and it turns out
>>>> they aren't. Here are the results :
>>>> Xeon 2.0GHz
>>>> Summary
>>>> make -j1 kernel/      33.94 +/- 0.07         34.91 +/- 0.27      2.8 %
>>>> hackbench 50           2.99 +/- 0.01          3.74 +/- 0.01     25.1 %
>>>> 1 CPU, replace smp lock prefixes with DS segment selector prefixes
>>>> 1 CPU, noreplace-smp
>>>>       
>>> For reference, could you also compare replace smp lock with NOPs?
>>>
>>> 	-hpa
>>>     
>>
>> Sure, here are the updated tables. Basically, they show no significant
>> difference between the NOP and the DS segment selector prefix
>> approaches.
>>   
>
> BTW, are you changing the initial prefix to DS too?  Ie, are you doing a 
> nop->lock->ds transition, or ds->lock->ds?
>
>    J

Yeah, I thought about this case yesterday, good thing you ask.

include/asm-x86/alternative.h defines LOCK_PREFIX as :

#define LOCK_PREFIX \
                ".section .smp_locks,\"a\"\n"   \
                _ASM_ALIGN "\n"                 \
                _ASM_PTR "661f\n" /* address */ \
                ".previous\n"                   \
                "661:\n\tlock; "

So we have the locked instructions built into the kernel, not the nop'd
one. Therefore, the only transition I am doing for my benchmarks is :

lock->ds

but I tried to switch back to SMP and it worked fine.

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/