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: <1350533619.19292.59.camel@pippen.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:13:39 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.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, 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


--
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/