linux-kernel - Re: Broken ARM (and powerpc ?) futex wrt memory barriers

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:	Mon, 25 May 2009 17:45:33 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: Broken ARM (and powerpc ?) futex wrt memory barriers

* Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca) wrote:
> * Russell King - ARM Linux (linux@....linux.org.uk) wrote:
> > Hmm, the mutex is undocumented in the atomic ops document.  Does it
> > require ordering both before and after, or do some of those ops just
> > need it before acquire and after release?
> > 
> 
> I guess the mutex fast path should probably be added to atomic_ops.txt.
> If I look at PowerPC mutex.h, mutex lock provides acquire semantic (like
> spinlock) and mutex unlock provides release semantic (like spin unlock).
> 
> acquire :
> 
> take lock
> smp_mb()
> (critical section memory accesses)
> 
> release :
> 
> (critical section memory accesses)
> smp_mb()
> release lock

* ARM

I think we also have to deal with futexes. See
arch/arm/include/asm/futex.h :

1 - 

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP

#include <asm-generic/futex.h>

#else /* !SMP, we can work around lack of atomic ops by disabling
preemption */

(arm-specific code here, seems to deal with futexes)

#endif

-> is it just me or this ifdef condition is the exact opposite of what
it should be ? I thought those generic futexes were for UP-only
systems...

Given futexes are used as key element of userspace mutex slow path
implementation, I think we should consider adding memory barriers there
too.


* PowerPC

Powerpc futex.h seems to have a LWSYNC_ON_SMP/ISYNC_ON_SMP before/after
the futex atomic operation, which act as memory barriers.

Interestingly enough, powerpc futex.h:futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic()
has both LWSYNC_ON_SMP (before atomic op) and ISYNC_ON_SMP (after); this
is typical for all powerpc atomic ops. However, __futex_atomic_op() only
has the LWSYNC_ON_SMP. Is there a reason for not having a ISYNC_ON_SMP
there ?

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/