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]

Message-ID: <1263460096.4244.282.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:08:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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)

On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 14:36 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:37 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > +       for_each_cpu(cpu, tmpmask) {
> > > +               spin_lock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > > +               mm = cpu_curr(cpu)->mm;
> > > +               spin_unlock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > > +               if (current->mm != mm)
> > > +                       cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> > > +       } 
> > 
> > Why not:
> > 
> >   rcu_read_lock();
> >   if (current->mm != cpu_curr(cpu)->mm)
> >     cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> >   rcu_read_unlock();
> > 
> > the RCU read lock ensures the task_struct obtained remains valid, and it
> > avoids taking the rq->lock.
> > 
> 
> If we go for a simple rcu_read_lock, I think that we need a smp_mb()
> after switch_to() updates the current task on the remote CPU, before it
> returns to user-space. Do we have this guarantee for all architectures ?
> 
> So what I'm looking for, overall, is:
> 
> schedule()
>   ...
>   switch_mm()
>     smp_mb()
>     clear mm_cpumask
>     set mm_cpumask
>   switch_to()
>     update current task
>     smp_mb()
> 
> If we have that, then the rcu_read_lock should work.
> 
> What the rq lock currently gives us is the guarantee that if the current
> thread changes on a remote CPU while we are not holding this lock, then
> a full scheduler execution is performed, which implies a memory barrier
> if we change the current thread (it does, right ?).

I'm not quite seeing it, we have 4 possibilities, switches between
threads with:

 a) our mm, another mm

   - if we observe the former, we'll send an IPI (redundant)
   - if we observe the latter, the switch_mm will have issued an mb

 b) another mm, our mm

   - if we observe the former, we're good because the cpu didn't run our
     thread when we called sys_membarrier()
   - if we observe the latter, we'll send an IPI (redundant)

 c) our mm, our mm

   - no matter which task we observe, we'll match and send an IPI

 d) another mm, another mm

   - no matter which task we observe, we'll not match and not send an
     IPI.


Or am I missing something?

--
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/