linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpustat: use atomic operations to read/update stats

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: <20130222141526.GB18149@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:15:28 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpustat: use atomic operations to read/update stats

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:05:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 13:50 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Which is a problem how?
> > 
> > So here is a possible scenario, CPU 0 reads a kcpustat value, and CPU
> > 1 writes
> > it at the same time:
> > 
> >     //Initial value of "cpustat" is 0xffffffff
> >          == CPU 0 ==           == CPU 1 ==
> > 
> >        //load low part
> >        mov %eax, [cpustat]
> >                              inc [cpustat]
> >                              //Update the high part if necessary
> >                              jnc 1f
> >                              inc [cpustat + 4]
> >                              1:
> >        //load high part
> >        mov %edx, [cpustat + 4]
> > 
> > 
> > Afterward, CPU 0 will think the value is 0x1ffffffff while it's
> > actually
> > 0x100000000.
> > 
> > atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() are supposed to take care of that,
> > without
> > even the need for _inc() or _add() parts that use LOCK.
> 
> 
> Sure I get that, but again, why is that a problem,.. who relies on
> these statistics that makes it a problem?

I guess we want to provide at least some minimal reliability in /proc/stat
I mean we don't mind if the read is slightly off, reading stats from userspace
is inherently racy anyway, but if it suddenly shows a wrong increase of 4 billions
which disappear soon after, it looks like a bug to me.
--
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/