linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] introduce atomic_pointer to fix a race condition in cancelable mcs spinlocks

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: <CA+55aFzX3oDvzqh4AfkJ7-X1Yfo8obFM+jOOmwzeN-GyqOPLJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Jun 2014 14:12:30 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] introduce atomic_pointer to fix a race condition in
 cancelable mcs spinlocks

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In the ->qlen case, interrupts are disabled and the current CPU is
> the only one who can write, so the read need not be volatile.  In the
> ->n_barrier_done, modifications are done holding ->barrier_mutex, so again
> the read need not be volatile.  In the sync_rcu_preempt_exp_count case,
> modifications are done holding sync_rcu_preempt_exp_mutex, so once again,
> the read need not be volatile.  So I could do something like:
>
>         ACCESS_ONCE(rdp->qlen) = rdp->qlen + 1;
>
> But that still makes gcc generate bad code
>
> The reason I was not all that worried about this is that these are not
> in fastpaths, and the last two are especially not in fastpaths.
>
> Suggestions?

So I think it probably *works*, but even so splitting it up to use
ACCESS_ONCE() on just the write is probably a better option, if only
because it would then make it much easier to change if we do end up
splitting reads and writes.

Because from a gcc code generation standpoint, using "volatile" will
always be horrible, because gcc will never be able to turn it into a
read-modify-write cycle. Arguable gcc _should_ be able to do that (it
is certainly allowable within the virtual machine definition), but I
understand why it doesn't ("volatile? Let's not optimize anything at
all, because it's special").

So "ACCESS_ONCE() + R-M-W" operation is actually pretty much
guaranteed to be "ACCESS_TWICE()", which may well be ok (performance
may not matter, and even when it does most architectures don't
actually have r-m-w instructions and when they do they aren't always
even faster), but I think it's just horribly horribly bad from a
conceptual and readability standpoint because it's so misleading.

So I'd actually rather see two explicit ACCESS_ONCE() calls - once to
read, once to write. Because that at least describes what is
happening, unlike the current situation.

Put another way: I can understand why you do it, and I can even agree
that it is "correct" from a functionality standpoint. But even despite
that all, I really don't like the construct very much..

              Linus
--
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/