linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1233251222.4495.110.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:47:02 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, npiggin@...e.de,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 09:21 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > The caller must wait till the LOCK bit is cleared before setting
> > it. When it is cleared, there is no IPI function using it.
> > A spinlock is used to synchronize the setting of the bit between
> > callers. Since only one callee can be called at a time, and it
> > is the only thing to clear it, the IPI does not need to use
> > any locking.
> 
> That spinlock cannot be right. It is provably wrong for so many reasons..
> 
> Think about it. We're talking about a per-CPU lock, which already makes no 
> sense: we're only locking against our own CPU, and we've already disabled 
> preemption for totally unrelated reasons.
> 
> And the only way locking can make sense against our own CPU is if we lock 
> against interrupts - but the lock isn't actually irq-safe, so if you are 
> trying to lock against interrupts, you are (a) doing it wrong (you should 
> disable interrupts, not use a spinlock) and (b) causing a deadlock if it 
> ever happens.


> +                       else {
> +                               data = &per_cpu(csd_data, cpu);
> +                               spin_lock(&per_cpu(csd_data_lock, cpu));
> +                               while (data->flags & CSD_FLAG_LOCK)
> +                                       cpu_relax();
> +                               data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> +                               spin_unlock(&per_cpu(csd_data_lock, cpu));
> +                       }

I think your argument would hold if he did:

  data = &__get_cpu_var(csd_data);

But now he's actually grabbing the remote cpu's csd, and thus needs
atomicy around that remote csd -- which two cpus could contend for.

--
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/