linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v9)

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: <20100304175659.GA3255@Krystal>
Date:	Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:56:59 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
	barrier (v9)

* Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> >  - SA_RUNNING: a way to signal only running threads - as a way for user-space 
> >    based concurrency control mechanisms to deschedule running threads (or, like
> >    in your case, to implement barrier / garbage collection schemes).
> 
> Hmm. This sounds less fundamentally broken, but at the same time also 
> _way_ more invasive in the signal handling layer. It's already one of our 
> more "exciting" layers out there.
> 

Hrm, thinking about it a bit further, the only way I see we could provide a
usable SA_RUNNING flag would be to add hooks to the scheduler. These hooks would
somehow have to call user-space code (!) when scheduling in/out a thread. Yes,
this sounds utterly broken (since these hooks would have to be preemptable).

The idea is this: if we look, for instance, at the kernel preemptable RCU
implementations, they consist of two parts: one is iteration on all CPUs to
consider all active CPUs, and the other is a modification of the scheduler to
note all preempted tasks that were in a preemptable RCU C.S..

Just for the memory barrier we consider for sys_membarrier(), I had to ensure
that the scheduler issues memory barriers to order accesses to user-space memory
and mm_cpumask modifications. In reality, what we are doing is to ensure that
the operation required on the running thread is done by the scheduler too when
scheduling in/out the task.

As soon as we have signal handlers which perform more than a simple memory
barrier (e.g. something that has side-effects outside of the processor), I doubt
it would ever make sense to only run the handler on running threads unless we
have hooks in the scheduler too.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/