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:	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:06:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 Tue, 2010-01-19 at 19:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:33 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > It's a case where CPU 1 switches from our mm to another mm:
> > 
> >        CPU 0 (membarrier)                  CPU 1 (another mm -our mm)
> >        <user-space>                        <user-space>
> >                                            <buffered access C.S. data>
> >                                            urcu read unlock()
> >                                              barrier()
> >                                              store local gp
> >                                            <kernel-space>
> 
> OK, so the question is how we end up here, if its though interrupt
> preemption I think the interrupt delivery will imply an mb,

I keep thinking that, but I think we actually refuted that in an earlier
discussion on this patch.

>  if its a
> blocking syscall, the set_task_state() mb [*] should be there.
> 
> Then we also do:
> 
> 					clear_tsk_need_resched()
> 
> which is an atomic bitop (although does not imply a full barrier
> per-se).
> 
> >                                            rq->curr = next (1)

We could possibly look at placing that assignment in context_switch()
between switch_mm() and switch_to(), which should provide a mb before
and after I think, Ingo?

--
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/