linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v3a)

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, 11 Jan 2010 23:20:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
 barrier (v3a)

On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:04 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 15:52 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > 
> > > So the clear bit can occur far, far away in the future, we don't care.
> > > We'll just send extra IPIs when unneeded in this time-frame.
> > 
> > I think we should try harder not to disturb CPUs, particularly in the
> > face of RT tasks and DoS scenarios. Therefore I don't think we should
> > just wildly send to mm_cpumask(), but verify (although speculatively)
> > that the remote tasks' mm matches ours.
> > 
> 
> Well, my point of view is that if IPI TLB shootdown does not care about
> disturbing CPUs running other processes in the time window of the lazy
> removal, why should we ?

while (1)
 sys_membarrier();

is a very good reason, TLB shootdown doesn't have that problem.

>  We're adding an overhead very close to that of
> an unrequired IPI shootdown which returns immediately without doing
> anything.

Except we don't clear the mask.

> The tradeoff here seems to be:
> - more overhead within switch_mm() for more precise mm_cpumask.
> vs
> - lazy removal of the cpumask, which implies that some processors
>   running a different process can receive the IPI for nothing.
> 
> I really doubt we could create an IPI DoS based on such a small
> time window.

What small window? When there's less runnable tasks than available mm
contexts some architectures can go quite a long while without
invalidating TLBs.

So what again is wrong with:

 int cpu, this_cpu = get_cpu();

 smp_mb(); 

 for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
   if (cpu == this_cpu)
     continue;
   if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm != current->mm)
     continue;
   smp_send_call_function_single(cpu, do_mb, NULL, 1);
 }

 put_cpu();

?

--
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/