linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier

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:	Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:52:49 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
	barrier

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:35 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 
> > The number of threads doesn't matter nearly as much as the number of
> > threads typically running at a time compared to the number of
> > processors.  Of course, we can't measure that as easily, but I don't
> > know that your proposed heuristic would approximate it well.
> 
> Quite agreed, and not disturbing RT tasks is even more important.

OK, so I stand un-Reviewed-by twice in one morning.  ;-)

> A simple:
> 
>   for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) {
>      if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
>         smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1);
>   }
> 
> seems far preferable over anything else, if you really want you can use
> a cpumask to copy cpu_vm_mask in and unset bits and use the mask with
> smp_call_function_any(), but that includes having to allocate the
> cpumask, which might or might not be too expensive for Mathieu.

This would be vulnerable to the sys_membarrier() CPU seeing an old value
of cpu_curr(cpu)->mm, and that other task seeing the old value of the
pointer we are trying to RCU-destroy, right?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/