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: <1263495037.28171.3860.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:50:37 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	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 Thu, 2010-01-14 at 12:54 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:26 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > > It's this scenario that is causing problem. Let's consider this
> > > execution:
> > > 
> 
> (slightly augmented)
> 
>        CPU 0 (membarrier)                  CPU 1 (another mm -> our mm)
>        <user-space>
>                                            <kernel-space>
>                                            switch_mm()
>                                              smp_mb()
>                                              clear_mm_cpumask()
>                                              set_mm_cpumask()
>                                              smp_mb() (by load_cr3() on x86)
>                                            switch_to()
>        memory access before membarrier
>        <call sys_membarrier()>
>        smp_mb()
>        mm_cpumask includes CPU 1
>        rcu_read_lock()
>        if (CPU 1 mm != our mm)

			But here, CPU 1 updated its mm already and did a
			smp_mb, won't that make us send the smp_mb
			anyway?

-- Steve

>          skip CPU 1.
>        rcu_read_unlock()
>        smp_mb()
>        <return to user-space>
>                                              current = next (1)
>                                            <switch back to user-space>
>                                            urcu read lock()
>                                              read gp
>                                              store local gp (2)
>                                              barrier()
>                                              access critical section data (3)
>        memory access after membarrier


--
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/