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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311252106430.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:26:25 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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 Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 20:47 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > which restores the ordering guarantee, which the hash bucket lock
> > > provided so far.
> > 
> > Actually that's not true by design, it just happens to work.
> > 
> > atomic_inc() on x86 is a "lock incl".
> > 
> >  The LOCK prefix just guarantees that the cache line which is affected
> >  by the INCL is locked. And it guarantees that locked operations
> >  serialize all outstanding load and store operations.
> > 
> >  But Documentation/atomic_ops.txt says about atomic_inc():
> > 
> >  "One very important aspect of these two routines is that they DO NOT
> >   require any explicit memory barriers.  They need only perform the
> >   atomic_t counter update in an SMP safe manner."
> > 
> >  So while this has a barrier on x86, it's not guaranteed.
> 
> 
> But it is guaranteed to be "in an SMP safe manner"... which I guess just
> means that two writes will not intermix bytes, but no guarantee that the
> value will be visible to other CPUs unless some kind of barrier is
> explicitly imposed.
> 
> Correct?

Yep, that's what it sayes.
 
> > So now your code melts down to:
> > 
> >  write(hb->waiters)    |    write(uaddr)
> >  mb                    |    read(hb->waiters)
> >  read(uaddr)
> > 
> > I fear you simply managed to make the window small enough that your
> > testing was not longer able expose it.
> 
> Does seem to be the case.

You must be aware, that between the the write(uaddr) and the
read(hb->waiters) is the syscall, i.e. a user/kernel space
transition.

sysenter/syscall have no documented barriers inside, but we don't know
whether the actual hw implementation provides one or if the memory ops
between modifying uaddr and reaching the read(hb->waiters) point
including the real atomic op on the waiter side are good enough to
paper over the issue.

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/