linux-kernel - Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)

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, 26 May 2009 13:23:22 -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,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Broken ARM atomic ops wrt memory barriers (was : [PATCH] Add
	cmpxchg support for ARMv6+ systems)

* Russell King - ARM Linux (linux@....linux.org.uk) wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:36:54AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h
> > > index bd4dc8e..e9889c2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/system.h
> > > @@ -248,6 +248,8 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr, int size
> > >  	unsigned int tmp;
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > +	smp_mb();
> > > +
> > >  	switch (size) {
> > >  #if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6
> > >  	case 1:
> > > @@ -258,7 +260,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __xchg(unsigned long x, volatile void *ptr, int size
> > >  		"	bne	1b"
> > >  			: "=&r" (ret), "=&r" (tmp)
> > >  			: "r" (x), "r" (ptr)
> > > -			: "memory", "cc");
> > > +			: "cc");
> > 
> > I would not remove the "memory" constraint in here. Anyway it's just a
> > compiler barrier, I doubt it would make anyting faster (due to the
> > following smp_mb() added), but it surely makes things harder to
> > understand.
> 
> If you don't already know that smp_mb() is always a compiler barrier then
> I guess it's true, but then if you don't know what the barriers are defined
> to be, should you be trying to understand atomic ops?
> 

The "memory" constaint in a gcc inline assembly has always been there to
tell the compiler that the inline assembly has side-effects on memory so
the compiler can take the appropriate decisions wrt optimisations.

Removing the "memory" clobber is just a bug.

The compiler needs the "memory" clobber in the inline assembly to know
that it cannot be put outside of the smp_mb() "memory" clobbers. If you
remove this clobber, the compiler is free to move the inline asm outside
of the smp_mb()s as long as it only touches registers and reads
immediate values.

> > If we determine that some reorderings are not possible on ARM, we might
> > eventually change rmb() for a simple barrier() and make atomic op
> > barriers a bit more lightweight.
> 
> There seems to be no "read memory barrier" on ARM - the dmb instruction
> can be restricted to writes, but not just reads.
> 

Yes, I've noticed that too. BTW binutils seems broken and does not
support "dmb st" :-(

> Moreover, there's a comment in the architecture reference manual that
> implementations which don't provide the other dmb variants must default
> to doing the full dmb, but then goes on to say that programs should not
> rely on this (what... that the relaxed dmb()s have any effect what so
> ever?)

Whoah.. that sounds odd.

> 
> Suggest we don't go anywhere near those until ARMv7 stuff has matured
> for a few years and these details resolved.

I think we have more insteresting details in the following reference
which tells us we are in the right direction. I wonder about
smp_read_barrier_depends though.  Maybe we should add a dmb in there
given how permissive the ordering semantic seems to be.

ARM v7-M Architecture Application Level Reference

http://jedrzej.ulasiewicz.staff.iiar.pwr.wroc.pl/KomputeroweSystSter/seminarium/materialy/arm/ARMv7_Ref.pdf

"A3.4.6 Synchronization primitives and the memory order model

The synchronization primitives follow the memory ordering model of the
memory type accessed by the instructions. For this reason:

• Portable code for claiming a spinlock must include a DMB instruction
between claiming the spinlock and making any access that makes use of
the spinlock.
• Portable code for releasing a spinlock must include a DMB instruction
before writing to clear the spinlock.

This requirement applies to code using the
Load-Exclusive/Store-Exclusive instruction pairs, for example
LDREX/STREX."

(this means that adding the dmb as we are doing is required)

A3.7.3 - Ordering requirements for memory accesses

Reading this, especially the table detailing the "Normal vs Normal"
memory operation order, makes me wonder if we should map

#define smp_read_barrier_depends	dmb()

Because two consecutive reads are not guaranteed to be globally
observable in program order. This means :

cpu A

write data
wmb()
update ptr

cpu B

cpyptr = rcu_dereference(ptr);
if (cpyptr)
  access *cpyptr data

cpu B could see the new ptr cache-line before the data cache-line, which
means we can read garbage.

But currently, only the old alphas have this requirement. I wonder if
it's just me missing some very important detail, but the documentation
about ordering seems permissive enough that it could potentially allow
such reordering.

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/