linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy 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: <20121023182711.GA24055@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:27:11 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers

On 10/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:59:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Not really the comment, but the question...
> >
> > On 10/22, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > >  static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
> > >  {
> > >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > > @@ -24,22 +27,12 @@ static inline void percpu_down_read(stru
> > >  	}
> > >  	this_cpu_inc(*p->counters);
> > >  	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +	light_mb(); /* A, between read of p->locked and read of data, paired with D */
> > >  }
> >
> > rcu_read_unlock() (or even preempt_enable) should have compiler barrier
> > semantics... But I agree, this adds more documentation for free.
>
> Although rcu_read_lock() does have compiler-barrier semantics if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, it does not for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.  So the
> light_mb() (which appears to be barrier()) is needed in that case.

Indeed, I missed this.

> > Ignoring the current implementation, according to the documentation
> > synchronize_sched() has all rights to return immediately if there is
> > no active rcu_read_lock_sched() section. If this were possible, than
> > percpu_up_read() lacks mb.
>
> Even if there happen to be no RCU-sched read-side critical sections
> at the current instant, synchronize_sched() is required to make sure
> that everyone agrees that whatever code is executed by the caller after
> synchronize_sched() returns happens after any of the preceding RCU
> read-side critical sections.
>
> So, if we have this, with x==0 initially:
>
> 	Task 0					Task 1
>
> 						rcu_read_lock_sched();
> 						x = 1;
> 						rcu_read_unlock_sched();
> 	synchronize_sched();
> 	r1 = x;
>
> Then the value of r1 had better be one.

Yes, yes, this too. ("active rcu_read_lock_sched() section" above
was confusing, I agree).

>  * Note that this guarantee implies a further memory-ordering guarantee.
>  * On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_sched() returns,
>  * each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier since
>  * the end of its last RCU read-side critical section whose beginning
>  * preceded the call to synchronize_sched().  Note that this guarantee
>  * includes CPUs that are offline, idle, or executing in user mode, as
>  * well as CPUs that are executing in the kernel.  Furthermore, if CPU A
>  * invoked synchronize_sched(), which returned to its caller on CPU B,
>  * then both CPU A and CPU B are guaranteed to have executed a full memory
>  * barrier during the execution of synchronize_sched().

Great!

Thanks Paul.

Oleg.

--
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/