linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [uclinux-dist-devel] freezer: should barriers be 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	<uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [uclinux-dist-devel] freezer: should barriers be smp?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > For example, there's no reason why the CPU cannot reorder things so that
> > > the "if (frozen(p))" is (speculatively) done before the "if (!freezing(p))"
> > > if there's only a compiler barrier between them.
> > 
> > That's true.  On an SMP system, smp_wmb() is identical to wmb(), so
> > there will be a true memory barrier when it is needed.  On a UP system,
> > reordering the instructions in this way will not change the final
> > result -- in particular, it won't break anything.
> > 
> > In your example, the two tests look at different flags in *p.  
> > Speculative reordering of the tests won't make any difference unless
> > one of the flags gets changed in between.  On a UP system, the only way
> > the flag can be changed is for the CPU to change it, in which case
> > the CPU would obviously know that the speculative result had to be
> > invalidated.
> 
> Note, however, that preemption may happen basically at any time, so the
> task that executes the two "if" statements can be preempted after it has
> loaded p->flags into a register and before it checks the TIF_FREEZE (if
> they are reordered).  In that case the p->flags (in memory) may be
> changed by another task in the meantime.

That's okay, because on a UP system there's only one CPU involved.  

When the other task changes p->flags, the CPU will realize that the
register containing the speculative p->flags value is now invalid.  
This will force it to re-read p->flags before testing TIF_FREEZE.

In principle, the sequence of events is no different from single-line
code doing:

	p->a = 1;
	if (p->b)
		...
	if (p->a)
		...

No CPU is ever going to mess this up, even if it does speculatively
load p->a before executing any of the other statements.

A problem can arise only when the "p->a = 1" statement is executed by a 
_different_ CPU.  In that case the original CPU has no way to tell that 
the speculative value is invalid, so a memory barrier is needed to 
prevent the speculative load.

> > > I'm quite convinced that the statement "some CPUs can reorder instructions in
> > > such a way that a compiler barrier is not sufficient to prevent breakage" is
> > > correct.
> > 
> > No.  The correct statement is "Some CPUs can reorder instructions in 
> > such a way that a compiler barrier is not sufficient to prevent 
> > breakage on SMP systems."
> 
> That's if preemption is not taken into account.

It's true even with preemption.

Besides, if this helps to convince you, recall that the task-switch
code (i.e., the scheduler) contains its own memory barriers.  If one
task gets preempted by another, these barriers will defeat instruction
reordering across the preemption boundary.

Alan Stern

--
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/