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 22:13:23 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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)

* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> 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.

Intel Architecture Software Developer's Manual Vol. 3: System
Programming
7.4 Serializing Instructions

"MOV to control reg, MOV to debug reg, WRMSR, INVD, INVLPG, WBINDV, LGDT,
LLDT, LIDT, LTR, CPUID, IRET, RSM"

So, this list does _not_ include: INT, SYSENTER, SYSEXIT.

Only IRET is included. So I don't think it is safe to assume that x86
has serializing instructions when entering/leaving the kernel.

> 
> >  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?

That's an interesting idea. It would indeed fix the problem of the
missing barrier before the assignment, but would lack the appropriate
barrier after the assignment. If the rq->curr = next; assignment is made
after load_cr3, then we lack a memory barrier between the assignment and
execution of following user-space code after returning with SYSEXIT (and
we lack the appropriate barrier for other architectures too).

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/