linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp

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: <20131104112254.GK28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:22:54 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	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: [RFC] arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp_tmb()

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:51:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK, something like this for the definitions (though PowerPC might want
> to locally abstract the lwsync expansion):
> 
> 	#define smp_store_with_release_semantics(p, v) /* x86, s390, etc. */ \
> 	do { \
> 		barrier(); \
> 		ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (v); \
> 	} while (0)
> 
> 	#define smp_store_with_release_semantics(p, v) /* PowerPC. */ \
> 	do { \
> 		__asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(LWSYNC) : : :"memory"); \
> 		ACCESS_ONCE(p) = (v); \
> 	} while (0)
> 
> 	#define smp_load_with_acquire_semantics(p) /* x86, s390, etc. */ \
> 	({ \
> 		typeof(*p) *_________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> 		barrier(); \
> 		_________p1; \
> 	})
> 
> 	#define smp_load_with_acquire_semantics(p) /* PowerPC. */ \
> 	({ \
> 		typeof(*p) *_________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> 		__asm__ __volatile__ (stringify_in_c(LWSYNC) : : :"memory"); \
> 		_________p1; \
> 	})
> 
> For ARM, smp_load_with_acquire_semantics() is a wrapper around the ARM
> "ldar" instruction and smp_store_with_release_semantics() is a wrapper
> around the ARM "stlr" instruction.

This still leaves me confused as to what to do with my case :/

Slightly modified since last time -- as the simplified version was maybe
simplified too far.

To recap, I'd like to get rid of barrier A where possible, since that's
now a full barrier for every event written.

However, there's no immediate store I can attach it to; the obvious one
would be the kbuf->head store, but that's complicated by the
local_cmpxchg() thing.

And we need that cmpxchg loop because a hardware NMI event can
interleave with a software event.

And to be honest, I'm still totally confused about memory barriers vs
control flow vs C/C++. The only way we're ever getting to that memcpy is
if we've already observed ubuf->tail, so that LOAD has to be fully
processes and completed.

I'm really not seeing how a STORE from the memcpy() could possibly go
wrong; and if C/C++ can hoist the memcpy() over a compiler barrier()
then I suppose we should all just go home.

/me who wants A to be a barrier() but is terminally confused.

---


/*
 * One important detail is that the kbuf part and the kbuf_writer() are
 * strictly per cpu and we can thus rely on program order for those.
 *
 * Only the userspace consumer can possibly run on another cpu, and thus we
 * need to ensure data consistency for those.
 */

struct buffer {
        u64 size;
        u64 tail;
        u64 head;
        void *data;
};

struct buffer *kbuf, *ubuf;

/*
 * If there's space in the buffer; store the data @buf; otherwise
 * discard it.
 */
void kbuf_write(int sz, void *buf)
{
	u64 tail, head, offset;

	do {
		tail = ACCESS_ONCE(ubuf->tail);
		offset = head = kbuf->head;
		if (CIRC_SPACE(head, tail, kbuf->size) < sz) {
			/* discard @buf */
			return;
		}
		head += sz;
	} while (local_cmpxchg(&kbuf->head, offset, head) != offset)

        /*
         * Ensure that if we see the userspace tail (ubuf->tail) such
         * that there is space to write @buf without overwriting data
         * userspace hasn't seen yet, we won't in fact store data before
         * that read completes.
         */

        smp_mb(); /* A, matches with D */

        memcpy(kbuf->data + offset, buf, sz);

        /*
         * Ensure that we write all the @buf data before we update the
         * userspace visible ubuf->head pointer.
         */
        smp_wmb(); /* B, matches with C */

        ubuf->head = kbuf->head;
}

/*
 * Consume the buffer data and update the tail pointer to indicate to
 * kernel space there's 'free' space.
 */
void ubuf_read(void)
{
        u64 head, tail;

        tail = ACCESS_ONCE(ubuf->tail);
        head = ACCESS_ONCE(ubuf->head);

        /*
         * Ensure we read the buffer boundaries before the actual buffer
         * data...
         */
        smp_rmb(); /* C, matches with B */

        while (tail != head) {
                obj = ubuf->data + tail;
                /* process obj */
                tail += obj->size;
                tail %= ubuf->size;
        }

        /*
         * Ensure all data reads are complete before we issue the
         * ubuf->tail update; once that update hits, kbuf_write() can
         * observe and overwrite data.
         */
        smp_mb(); /* D, matches with A */

        ubuf->tail = tail;
}
--
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/