linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation

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:	Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:27:03 -0800
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
	Alexander Fyodorov <halcy@...dex.ru>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock
 implementation


> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Set up the new cpu code to be exchanged
> > > +	 */
> > > +	my_qcode = SET_QCODE(cpu_nr, qn_idx);
> > > +
> > 
> > If we get interrupted here before we have a chance to set the used flag,
> > the interrupt handler could pick up the same qnode if it tries to
> > acquire queued spin lock.  Then we could overwrite the qcode we have set
> > here.
> > 
> > Perhaps an exchange operation for the used flag to prevent this race
> > condition?
> 
> I don't get why we need the used thing at all; something like:
> 
> struct qna {
> 	int cnt;
> 	struct qnode nodes[4];
> };
> 
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct qna, qna);
> 
> struct qnode *get_qnode(void)
> {
> 	struct qna *qna = this_cpu_ptr(&qna);
> 
> 	return qna->nodes[qna->cnt++]; /* RMW */
> }
> 
> void put_qnode(struct qnode *qnode)
> {
> 	struct qna *qna = this_cpu_ptr(&qna);
> 	qna->cnt--;
> }
> 
> Should do fine, right?
> 
> If we interrupt the RMW above the interrupted context hasn't yet used
> the queue and once we return its free again, so all should be well even
> on load-store archs.

Agreed. This approach is more efficient and avoid the overhead 
searching for unused node and setting used flag.

Tim

> 
> The nodes array might as well be 3, because NMIs should never contend on
> a spinlock, so all we're left with is task, softirq and hardirq context.


--
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/