linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / Wakeup: Add missing memory barriers

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: <201101262136.46577.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:36:46 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PM / Wakeup: Add missing memory barriers

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > 
> > The memory barrier in wakeup_source_deactivate() is supposed to
> > prevent the callers of pm_wakeup_pending() and pm_get_wakeup_count()
> > from seeing the new value of events_in_progress (0, in particular)
> > and the old value of event_count at the same time.  However, if
> > wakeup_source_deactivate() is executed by CPU0 and, for instance,
> > pm_wakeup_pending() is executed by CPU1, where both processors can
> > reorder operations, the memory barrier in wakeup_source_deactivate()
> > doesn't affect CPU1 which can reorder reads.  In that case CPU1 may
> > very well decide to fetch event_count before it's modified and
> > events_in_progress after it's been updated, so pm_wakeup_pending()
> > may fail to detect a wakeup event.  This issue can be addressed by
> > adding a read memory barrier in pm_wakeup_pending() that will enforce
> > events_in_progress to be read before event_count.
> > 
> > For similar reason, a read memory barrier should be added to
> > pm_get_wakeup_count().
> 
> How come this is implemented using memory barriers rather than a lock?  
> Is it because this is potentially a fairly hot path?

Yes, that's the reason.

> New memory barriers are supposed to have comments present in the code, 
> explaining why they are needed.

Of course I can add them.

> Ideally you could do away with the need for synchronization entirely.  
> For example, events_in_progress and event_count could be stored as two 
> 16-bit values stuffed into a single atomic variable.  Then they could 
> both be read or updated simultaneously.

I thought about that too, but didn't actually implement it.

Well, I guess it would be better.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/