linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.11 18/25] perf: Fix perf ring buffer memory ordering

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, 18 Nov 2013 10:40:47 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Victor Kaplansky <victork@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, michael@...erman.id.au,
	anton@...ba.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: [PATCH 3.11 18/25] perf: Fix perf ring buffer memory ordering

3.11-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

commit bf378d341e4873ed928dc3c636252e6895a21f50 upstream.

The PPC64 people noticed a missing memory barrier and crufty old
comments in the perf ring buffer code. So update all the comments and
add the missing barrier.

When the architecture implements local_t using atomic_long_t there
will be double barriers issued; but short of introducing more
conditional barrier primitives this is the best we can do.

Reported-by: Victor Kaplansky <victork@...ibm.com>
Tested-by: Victor Kaplansky <victork@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: michael@...erman.id.au
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: anton@...ba.org
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20131025173749.GG19466@laptop.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h |   12 +++++++-----
 kernel/events/ring_buffer.c     |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
@@ -428,13 +428,15 @@ struct perf_event_mmap_page {
 	/*
 	 * Control data for the mmap() data buffer.
 	 *
-	 * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an rmb(), on
-	 * SMP capable platforms, after reading this value -- see
-	 * perf_event_wakeup().
+	 * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an smp_rmb(),
+	 * after reading this value.
 	 *
 	 * When the mapping is PROT_WRITE the @data_tail value should be
-	 * written by userspace to reflect the last read data. In this case
-	 * the kernel will not over-write unread data.
+	 * written by userspace to reflect the last read data, after issueing
+	 * an smp_mb() to separate the data read from the ->data_tail store.
+	 * In this case the kernel will not over-write unread data.
+	 *
+	 * See perf_output_put_handle() for the data ordering.
 	 */
 	__u64   data_head;		/* head in the data section */
 	__u64	data_tail;		/* user-space written tail */
--- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
@@ -87,10 +87,31 @@ 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.
+	 * Since the mmap() consumer (userspace) can run on a different CPU:
+	 *
+	 *   kernel				user
+	 *
+	 *   READ ->data_tail			READ ->data_head
+	 *   smp_mb()	(A)			smp_rmb()	(C)
+	 *   WRITE $data			READ $data
+	 *   smp_wmb()	(B)			smp_mb()	(D)
+	 *   STORE ->data_head			WRITE ->data_tail
+	 *
+	 * Where A pairs with D, and B pairs with C.
+	 *
+	 * I don't think A needs to be a full barrier because we won't in fact
+	 * write data until we see the store from userspace. So we simply don't
+	 * issue the data WRITE until we observe it. Be conservative for now.
+	 *
+	 * OTOH, D needs to be a full barrier since it separates the data READ
+	 * from the tail WRITE.
+	 *
+	 * For B a WMB is sufficient since it separates two WRITEs, and for C
+	 * an RMB is sufficient since it separates two READs.
+	 *
+	 * See perf_output_begin().
 	 */
+	smp_wmb();
 	rb->user_page->data_head = head;
 
 	/*
@@ -154,9 +175,11 @@ int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output
 		 * Userspace could choose to issue a mb() before updating the
 		 * tail pointer. So that all reads will be completed before the
 		 * write is issued.
+		 *
+		 * See perf_output_put_handle().
 		 */
 		tail = ACCESS_ONCE(rb->user_page->data_tail);
-		smp_rmb();
+		smp_mb();
 		offset = head = local_read(&rb->head);
 		head += size;
 		if (unlikely(!perf_output_space(rb, tail, offset, 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/