linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

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:	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:12:37 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] virtio: use mandatory barriers for remote processor vdevs

On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:58:59PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:13:07 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > For x86, stores into memory are ordered. So I think that yes, smp_XXX
> > can be selected at compile time.
> > 
> > So let's forget the virtio strangeness for a minute,
> 
> Hmm, we got away with light barriers because we knew we were not
> *really* talking to a device.  But now with virtio-mmio, turns out we
> are :)

You think virtio-mmio this issue too?  It's reported on remoteproc...

> I'm really tempted to revert d57ed95 for 3.2, and we can revisit this
> optimization later if it proves worthwhile.
> 
> Thoughts?
> Rusty. 

Generally it does seem the best we can do for 3.2.

Given it's rc3, I'd be a bit wary of introducing regressions - I'll try
to find some real setups (as in - not my laptop) to run some benchmarks
on, to verify there's no major problem.
I hope I can report on this in about a week from now - want to hold onto this meanwhile?

Further, if we do revert, need to remember to apply the following
beforehand, to avoid breaking virtio tool:

tools/virtio: implement mandatory barriers for x86

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>

diff --git a/tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h b/tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h
index 68b8b8d..1bf0e80 100644
--- a/tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h
+++ b/tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h
@@ -172,11 +172,18 @@ struct virtqueue {
 #define MODULE_LICENSE(__MODULE_LICENSE_value) \
 	const char *__MODULE_LICENSE_name = __MODULE_LICENSE_value
 
 #define CONFIG_SMP
 
 #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
 #define barrier() asm volatile("" ::: "memory")
 #define mb() __sync_synchronize()
+#if defined(__i386__)
+#define wmb() mb()
+#define rmb() mb()
+#else
+#define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory")
+#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence" ::: "memory")
+#endif
 
 #define smp_mb()	mb()
 # define smp_rmb()	barrier()

-- 
MST
--
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/