linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210181216590.22996@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:17:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path



On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:18 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > 
> > > Looking at the patch, you are correct. The read side doesn't need the
> > > memory barrier as the worse thing that will happen is that it sees the
> > > locked = false, and will just grab the mutex unnecessarily.
> > 
> > ---------------------
> > A memory barrier can be added iff these two things are known:
> > 	1) it disables the disordering between what and what.
> > 	2) what is the corresponding mb() that it pairs with.
> > 
> 
> OK, I was just looking at the protection and actions of the locked flag,
> but I see what you are saying with the data itself.
> 
> > You tried to add a mb() in percpu_up_write(), OK, I know it disables the disordering
> > between the writes to the protected data and the statement "p->locked = false",
> > But I can't find out the corresponding mb() that it pairs with.
> > 
> > percpu_down_read()					writes to the data
> > 	The cpu cache/prefetch the data			writes to the data
> > 	which is chaos					writes to the data
> > 							percpu_up_write()
> > 								mb()
> > 								p->locked = false;
> > 	unlikely(p->locked)
> > 		the cpu see p->lock = false,
> > 		don't discard the cached/prefetch data
> > 	this_cpu_inc(*p->counters);
> > 	the code of read-access to the data
> > 	****and we use the chaos data*****
> > 
> > So you need to add a mb() after "unlikely(p->locked)".
> 
> Does it need a full mb() or could it be just a rmb()? The down_read I
> wouldn't think would need to protect against stores, would it? The
> memory barrier should probably go in front of the unlikely() too. The
> write to p->counters is handled by the synchronized sched, and adding a
> rmb() in front of the unlikely check would keep prefetched data from
> passing this barrier.
> 
> This is a perfect example why this primitive should be vetted outside of
> mainline before it gets merged.
> 
> -- Steve

If we do synchronize_rcu() in percpu_up_write, we don't need a barrier in 
percpu_down_read(). So I would do that.

Mikulas
--
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/