linux-kernel - Re: allow preemption in check_task

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140210184514.GA13362@opentech.at>
Date:	Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:45:14 +0100
From:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andreas Platschek <platschek@....tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: allow preemption in check_task_state

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 07:12:03PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:17:12PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > > maybe I'm missing/missunderstanding something here but
> > > > pi_unlock -> arch_spin_unlock is a full mb() 
> > > 
> > > Nope, arch_spin_unlock() on x86 is a single add[wb] without LOCK prefix.
> > > 
> > > The lock and unlock primitives are in general specified to have ACQUIRE
> > > resp. RELEASE semantics.
> > > 
> > > See Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for far too much head-hurting
> > > details.
> > 
> > I did check that - but from the code check it seems to me to be using a
> > lock prefix in the fast __add() path and an explicit smp_add() in the slow
> > path (arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h:arch_spin_unlock) the __add from 
> > arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h does lock or am I missinterpreting this ?
> > the other archs I believe were all doing explicit mb()/smp_mb() in the 
> > arch_spin_unlock - will go check this again.
> 
> It uses UNLOCK_LOCK_PREFIX, which if you look carefully, is normally
> always "". Only some 'broken' i386 chips require a LOCK there.

thanks for the details - will go dig through this again - still 
missing seme bits.

the first patch proposal is taken care of I guess :)

thx!
hofrat
--
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/