linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: Correct the placement of smp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1291136157-2732-3-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:55:57 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jaxboe@...ionio.com
Cc:	vgoyal@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	jmarchan@...hat.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: Correct the placement of smp_rmb()

o I was discussing what are the variable being updated without spin lock and
  why do we need barriers and Oleg pointed out that location of smp_rmb()
  should be between read of td->limits_changed and tg->limits_changed. This
  patch fixes it.

o Following is one possible sequence of events. Say cpu0 is executing
  throtl_update_blkio_group_read_bps() and cpu1 is executing
  throtl_process_limit_change().

 cpu0                                                cpu1

 tg->limits_changed = true;
 smp_mb__before_atomic_inc();
 atomic_inc(&td->limits_changed);

                                     if (!atomic_read(&td->limits_changed))
                                             return;

                                     if (tg->limits_changed)
                                             do_something;

 If cpu0 has updated tg->limits_changed and td->limits_changed, we want to
 make sure that if update to td->limits_changed is visible on cpu1, then
 update to tg->limits_changed should also be visible.

 Oleg pointed out to ensure that we need to insert an smp_rmb() between
 td->limits_changed read and tg->limits_changed read.

o I had erroneously put smp_rmb() before atomic_read(&td->limits_changed).
  This patch fixes it.

Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c |   23 +++++++++--------------
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 2d134b7..381b09b 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -725,26 +725,21 @@ static void throtl_process_limit_change(struct throtl_data *td)
 	struct throtl_grp *tg;
 	struct hlist_node *pos, *n;
 
-	/*
-	 * Make sure atomic_inc() effects from
-	 * throtl_update_blkio_group_read_bps(), group of functions are
-	 * visible.
-	 * Is this required or smp_mb__after_atomic_inc() was suffcient
-	 * after the atomic_inc().
-	 */
-	smp_rmb();
 	if (!atomic_read(&td->limits_changed))
 		return;
 
 	throtl_log(td, "limit changed =%d", atomic_read(&td->limits_changed));
 
-	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(tg, pos, n, &td->tg_list, tg_node) {
-		/*
-		 * Do I need an smp_rmb() here to make sure tg->limits_changed
-		 * update is visible. I am relying on smp_rmb() at the
-		 * beginning of function and not putting a new one here.
-		 */
+	/*
+	 * Make sure updates from throtl_update_blkio_group_read_bps() group
+	 * of functions to tg->limits_changed are visible. We do not
+	 * want update td->limits_changed to be visible but update to
+	 * tg->limits_changed not being visible yet on this cpu. Hence
+	 * the read barrier.
+	 */
+	smp_rmb();
 
+	hlist_for_each_entry_safe(tg, pos, n, &td->tg_list, tg_node) {
 		if (throtl_tg_on_rr(tg) && tg->limits_changed) {
 			throtl_log_tg(td, tg, "limit change rbps=%llu wbps=%llu"
 				" riops=%u wiops=%u", tg->bps[READ],
-- 
1.7.2.3

--
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/