linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

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, 25 Nov 2013 17:23:51 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>, tom.vaden@...com,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Now the question is why we queue the waiter _AFTER_ reading the user
> > space value. The comment in the code is pretty non sensical:
> >
> >    * On the other hand, we insert q and release the hash-bucket only
> >    * after testing *uaddr.  This guarantees that futex_wait() will NOT
> >    * absorb a wakeup if *uaddr does not match the desired values
> >    * while the syscall executes.
> >
> > There is no reason why we cannot queue _BEFORE_ reading the user space
> > value. We just have to dequeue in all the error handling cases, but
> > for the fast path it does not matter at all.
> >
> > CPU 0                                   CPU 1
> >
> >     val = *futex;
> >     futex_wait(futex, val);
> >
> >     spin_lock(&hb->lock);
> >
> >     plist_add(hb, self);
> >     smp_wmb();
> >
> >     uval = *futex;
> >                                         *futex = newval;
> >                                         futex_wake();
> >
> >                                         smp_rmb();
> >                                         if (plist_empty(hb))
> >                                            return;
> > ...
> 
> This would seem to be a nicer approach indeed, without needing the
> extra atomics.

I went through the issue with Peter and he noticed, that we need
smp_mb() in both places. That's what we have right now with the
spin_lock() and it is required as we need to guarantee that

 The waiter observes the change to the uaddr value after it added
 itself to the plist

 The waker observes plist not empty if the change to uaddr was made
 after the waiter checked the value.


	write(plist)		|	write(futex_uaddr)
	mb()			|	mb()
	read(futex_uaddr)	|	read(plist)

The spin_lock mb() on the waiter side does not help here because it
happpens before the write(plist) and not after it.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/