linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the 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: <CACVXFVNAAXAWtTncahb=sADHxmZOmdDOJA1FUX8Qt4ZR3To_qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:22:46 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ostrikov@...dia.com,
	adobriyan@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 23:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> CPU0                  CPU1
>>
>> atomic_set(v)
>> smp_mb()
>>                               smp_mb()
>>                               atomic_dec_and_test(v)
>>
>> Without the barrier after atomic_set, CPU1 may see a stale
>> value of v first, then decrease it, so may miss a release operation.
>
> Your example is doubly broken. If there's concurrency possible with
> atomic_set() you've lost.

kref_init is guaranteed to be run only one time __before__ executing
kref_get/kref_put.

>
> Lets change it to kref_get() aka atomic_inc():
>
>        CPU0            CPU1
>
>        atomic_inc()
>                        atomic_dec_and_test()
>
> and
>
>                        atomic_dec_and_test()
>        atomic_inc()
>
> For if the first is possible, then so is the second.

Yes, both are reasonable.

>
> This illustrates that no matter how many barriers you put in, you're
> still up shit creek without no paddle because the kref_put() can come in
> before you do the kref_get(), making the kref_get() the invalid
> operation.

So one smp_mb__before_atomic_inc should be added before atomic_inc
to make sure that CPU0 can see the uptodate ref, right?

>> The pair of smp_mb can make order between atomic_set
>> and atomic_dec_and_test, can't it?
>
> No. Because there's nothing stopping the dec from happening before the
> set/inc.

As stated above, one smp_mb__before_atomic_inc before atomic_inc
may avoid the race.

>> > If there's a destruction race with kref_put() the barrier won't
>>
>> Sorry, could you say what the destruction race is?
>
> The race to 0-refs, iow. the case above when you assume both cases start
> out with 1 ref.

But the initial value of kref is 1, so seems we don't need to consider
the 0-refs.


thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
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/