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]

Message-ID: <48A46EC2.1010301@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:43:30 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
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

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * 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.
>   

Ah, OK.  I'd thought we started unlocked, but given that I've just been 
disassembling the kernel and looking at the lock prefixes, that's a bit 
of a braino on my part.

BTW, using the ds prefix allows us to undo the hack of dealing with 
locked instructions with exception handlers.  There was a bug where if 
we do lock->nop, then the address of a faulting instruction changes, so 
we need exception records for both the locked and unlocked forms.  Using 
ds means the instruction size doesn't change, so we only need one 
exception record.  I don't remember off hand where that happens.

    J
--
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/