linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish

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]

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:48:06 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, torvalds@...l.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, serue@...ibm.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] It may not be assumed that wake_up(), finish_wait() and co. imply a memory barrier

Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Because there is no memory barrier between #2 and #3, reordering by
> either the compiler or the CPU might cause the awakener to update the
> event_indicated flag in #3 -before- completing its update of shared
> state in #2.

If the ordering of #2 and #3 is important with respect to each other, then the
awakener must manually interpolate a barrier of some sort between the two
_before_ calling wake_up() (or it should wrap them in a lock).

As I've tried to make clear in my documentation:

	Sleeping and waking on an event flagged in global data can be viewed as
	an interaction between two pieces of data: ===> the task state of the
	task waiting for the event and the global data used to indicate the
	event <===.

the barrier in wake_up() is only concerned with the ordering of #3 vs #6.  That
is all it _can_ impose an order upon, since #2 and #3 both happen before
wake_up() is called, and #3 is what causes the sleeper to break out of the
sleep loop.

> So, for this to work correctly, don't we need at least an smp_wmb()
> between #2 and #3 and at least an smp_rmb() between #4 and #5?  And if
> #2 does reads (but not writes) at least one variable in the shared state
> that #5 writes to, don't both barriers need to be smp_mb()?

Yes, but that's beyond the scope of this section.  set_current_state() imposes
the partial ordering { #1, #4 } and wake_up() the partial ordering { #3, #6 }
because those are the controlling features of the loop.

Managing the data beyond that is up to the caller of set_current_state() and
the caller of wake_up().

David
--
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/