linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v5)

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:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:46:59 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
	barrier (v5)

* Heiko Carstens (heiko.carstens@...ibm.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 08:37:57PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > +static void membarrier_retry(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> > +		spin_lock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > +		mm = cpu_curr(cpu)->mm;
> > +		spin_unlock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > +		if (current->mm == mm)
> > +			smp_call_function_single(cpu, membarrier_ipi, NULL, 1);
> > +	}
> 
> You would need to disable cpu unplug operations while doing this
> or you might end up sending IPIs to offline cpus.

smp_call_function_single() checks for cpu_online(cpu), and returns
-ENXIO if the cpu is not online. So I think disabling cpu hotplug would
be redundant with this test.

smp_call_function_many uses cpumask_next_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask)
to alter the mask, so no cpu hotplug disabling needed there neither.

These checks are protected by preemption disabling.

> 
> > +	cpumask_copy(tmpmask, mm_cpumask(current->mm));
> > +	preempt_disable();
> > +	cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), tmpmask);
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, tmpmask) {
> > +		spin_lock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > +		mm = cpu_curr(cpu)->mm;
> 
> This might access the rq of an offline cpu.
> But maybe it's intended since offline cpus "run" idle?

In a rare race with hotunplug vs lazy TLB shootdown, yes. Although even
then, as you point out, ->mm will be NULL, so we won't even consider the
CPU for IPI. In any case, I think adding a cpumask online "and" would be
an added performance overhead for the common case compared to the
performance gain in the rare cpu hotunplug race window.

Thanks,

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/