linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] vhost: fix barrier pairing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3wrv9tqyj.fsf@trasno.mitica>
Date:	Wed, 12 May 2010 11:22:12 +0200
From:	Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vhost: fix barrier pairing

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> According to memory-barriers.txt, an smp memory barrier
> should always be paired with another smp memory barrier,
> and I quote "a lack of appropriate pairing is almost certainly an
> error".
>
> In case of vhost, failure to flush out used index
> update before looking at the interrupt disable flag
> could result in missed interrupts, resulting in
> networking hang under stress.
>
> This might happen when flags read bypasses used index write.
> So we see interrupts disabled and do not interrupt, at the
> same time guest writes flags value to enable interrupt,
> reads an old used index value, thinks that
> used ring is empty and waits for interrupt.
>
> Note: the barrier we pair with here is in
> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c, function
> vring_enable_cb.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> Dave, I think this is needed in 2.6.34, I'll send a pull
> request after doing some more testing.
>
> Rusty, Juan, could you take a look as well please?
> Thanks!

I would have prefered to put it:

void vhost_add_used_and_signal(struct vhost_dev *dev,
			       struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
			       unsigned int head, int len)
{
	vhost_add_used(vq, head, len);
>>>>    smp_mb();
	vhost_signal(dev, vq);
}

Because it looks strange to have a barrier as the 1st instruction of a
function.  And this way it is clearer (at least to me) what we are
protecting.

But on the other hand, we would have to put a comment explainingthat all
users of vhost_signal() have to put that smp_mb() so .....

Perhaps just improving the commet stating that the corresponding barrier
is there?

> Note: the barrier we pair with here is in
> drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c, function
> vring_enable_cb.

Good catch.

Later, Juan.
--
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/