linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #11989] Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop

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:	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:46:38 +0100
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kernel Testers List" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11989] Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop_machine

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> [ Cc:-ed workqueue/locking/suspend-race-condition experts. ]
>
> Heh. I am not expert, but I looked at the code. The obvious suspicious
> thing to see is the use of unpaired barriers? Maybe like this:

...

> 55 /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
> 56 static void ack_state(void)
> 57 {
> 58         if (atomic_dec_and_test(&thread_ack))
>
> Maybe
> + /* force ordering between thread_ack/state */
> + smp_rmb();
> here?

Oops, I am wrong (after a small investigation).

"1490 Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and
returns information
1491 about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional general
memory barrier
1492 (smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation (with the exception of
1493 explicit lock operations, described later).  These include:
1494
...
1503         atomic_dec_and_test();"

Won't fix the problem at hand, but maybe something like this would be
nice for future generations :-)

diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 0e688c6..6796bb1 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ static void set_state(enum stopmachine_state newstate)
 /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
 static void ack_state(void)
 {
+       /* Implicit memory barrier; no smp_rmb() needed */
        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&thread_ack))
                set_state(state + 1);
 }


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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/