linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/17] RCU'd vfsmounts

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: <20131004070448.GA29335@leaf>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 00:04:49 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] RCU'd vfsmounts

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:15:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:03:05PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:29:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:28:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:52:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is this:
> > > > > > A = 1, B = 1
> > > > > > CPU1:
> > > > > > A = 0
> > > > > > <full barrier>
> > > > > > synchronize_rcu()
> > > > > > read B
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CPU2:
> > > > > > rcu_read_lock()
> > > > > > B = 0
> > > > > > read A
> > > 
> > > /me scratches his head...
> > > 
> > > OK, for CPU2 to see 1 from its read from A, the corresponding RCU
> > > read-side critical section must have started before CPU1 did A=0.  This
> > > means that this same RCU read-side critical section must have started
> > > before CPU1's synchronize_rcu(), which means that it must complete
> > > before that synchronize_rcu() returns.  Therefore, CPU2's B=0 must
> > > execute before CPU1's read of B, hence that read of B must return zero.
> > > 
> > > Conversely, if CPU1's read from B returns 1, we know that CPU2's
> > > RCU read-side critical section must not have completed until after
> > > CPU1's synchronize_rcu() returned, which means that the RCU read-side
> > > critical section must have started after that synchronize_rcu() started,
> > > so CPU1's assignment to A must also have already happened.  Therefore,
> > > CPU2's read from A must return zero.
> > 
> > Yeah, that makes sense.
> > 
> > I think too much time spent staring at the *implementation* of RCU and
> > the exciting assumptions it has to make about barriers or memory
> > operations leaking out of the implementations of the RCU primitives (for
> > instance, the fun needed to guarantee a memory barrier on all CPUs, or
> > to safely use non-atomic operations inside RCU itself) makes it entirely
> > too difficult to look at a perfectly ordinary *use* of RCU primitives
> > and see the obvious. :)
> 
> I must confess that my first thought upon seeing Al's example was "but
> of course CPU2's write to B and read from A can be reordered by either
> the compiler or the CPU!"  I had to look again myself.  ;-)

Exactly.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/