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]

Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:17:35 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc

On 10/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:26:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> > @@ -87,10 +87,31 @@ static void perf_output_put_handle(struc
> >  		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.
> > +	 * Since the mmap() consumer (userspace) can run on a different CPU:
> > +	 *
> > +	 *   kernel				user
> > +	 *
> > +	 *   READ ->data_tail			READ ->data_head
> > +	 *   smp_rmb()	(A)			smp_rmb()	(C)
>
> Given that both of the kernel's subsequent operations are stores/writes,
> doesn't (A) need to be smp_mb()?

Yes, this is my understanding^Wfeeling too, but I have to admit that
I can't really explain to myself why _exactly_ we need mb() here.

And let me copy-and-paste the artificial example from my previous
email,

	bool	BUSY;
	data_t 	DATA;

	bool try_to_get(data_t *data)
	{
		if (!BUSY)
			return false;

		rmb();

		*data = DATA;
		mb();
		BUSY = false;

		return true;
	}

	bool try_to_put(data_t *data)
	{
		if (BUSY)
			return false;

		mb();	// XXXXXXXX: do we really need it? I think yes.

		DATA = *data;
		wmb();
		BUSY = true;

		return true;
	}

(just in case, the code above obviously assumes that _get or _put
 can't race with itself, but they can race with each other).

Could you confirm that try_to_put() actually needs mb() between
LOAD(BUSY) and STORE(DATA) ?

I am sure it actually needs, but I will appreciate it if you can
explain why. IOW, how it is possible that without mb() try_to_put()
can overwrite DATA before try_to_get() completes its "*data = DATA"
in this particular case.

Perhaps this can happen if, say, reader and writer share a level of
cache or something like this...

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/