linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 tip/core/locking 8/8] powerpc: Full barrier for smp_mb__after_unlock

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:	Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:59:11 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 tip/core/locking 8/8] powerpc: Full barrier for smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

The powerpc lock acquisition sequence is as follows:

	lwarx; cmpwi; bne; stwcx.; lwsync;

Lock release is as follows:

	lwsync; stw;

If CPU 0 does a store (say, x=1) then a lock release, and CPU 1 does a
lock acquisition then a load (say, r1=y), then there is no guarantee of
a full memory barrier between the store to 'x' and the load from 'y'.
To see this, suppose that CPUs 0 and 1 are hardware threads in the same
core that share a store buffer, and that CPU 2 is in some other core,
and that CPU 2 does the following:

	y = 1; sync; r2 = x;

If 'x' and 'y' are both initially zero, then the lock acquisition and
release sequences above can result in r1 and r2 both being equal to
zero, which could not happen if unlock+lock was a full barrier.

This commit therefore makes powerpc's smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() be a
full barrier.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
index 5f54a744dcc5..f6e78d63fb6a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
 #include <asm/synch.h>
 #include <asm/ppc-opcode.h>

+#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()	smp_mb()  /* Full ordering for lock. */
+
 #define arch_spin_is_locked(x)		((x)->slock != 0)

 #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
-- 
1.8.1.5

--
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/