linux-kernel - Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc

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: <CAFTL4hxGxSqWSaX0s7kSdXXY0sgSmM3intiKpM7H_4RhRP5DBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:25:44 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	michael <michael@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc

2013/10/23 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:54:54AM +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
>> Frederic,
>>
>> In the perf ring buffer code we have this in perf_output_get_handle():
>>
>>       if (!local_dec_and_test(&rb->nest))
>>               goto out;
>>
>>       /*
>>        * Publish the known good head. Rely on the full barrier implied
>>        * by atomic_dec_and_test() order the rb->head read and this
>>        * write.
>>        */
>>       rb->user_page->data_head = head;
>>
>> The comment says atomic_dec_and_test() but the code is
>> local_dec_and_test().
>>
>> On powerpc, local_dec_and_test() doesn't have a memory barrier but
>> atomic_dec_and_test() does.  Is the comment wrong, or is
>> local_dec_and_test() suppose to imply a memory barrier too and we have
>> it wrongly implemented in powerpc?
>>
>> My guess is that local_dec_and_test() is correct but we to add an
>> explicit memory barrier like below:
>>
>> (Kudos to Victor Kaplansky for finding this)
>>
>> Mikey
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>> index cd55144..95768c6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
>> @@ -87,10 +87,10 @@ again:
>>               goto out;
>>
>>       /*
>> -      * Publish the known good head. Rely on the full barrier implied
>> -      * by atomic_dec_and_test() order the rb->head read and this
>> -      * write.
>> +      * Publish the known good head. We need a memory barrier to order the
>> +      * order the rb->head read and this write.
>>        */
>> +     smp_mb ();
>>       rb->user_page->data_head = head;
>>
>>       /*
>
>
> I'm adding Peter in Cc since he wrote that code.
> I agree that local_dec_and_test() doesn't need to imply an smp barrier.
> All it has to provide as a guarantee is the atomicity against local concurrent
> operations (interrupts, preemption, ...).
>
> Now I'm a bit confused about this barrier.
>
> I think we want this ordering:
>
>     Kernel                             User
>
>    READ rb->user_page->data_tail       READ rb->user_page->data_head
>    smp_mb()                            smp_mb()
>    WRITE rb data                       READ rb  data
>    smp_mb()                            smp_mb()
>    rb->user_page->data_head            WRITE rb->user_page->data_tail
      ^^ I meant a write above for data_head.
--
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/