linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 09/16] qspinlock, x86: Allow unfair spinlock in a virtual guest

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: <20140611113841.GD3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:38:41 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/16] qspinlock, x86: Allow unfair spinlock in a
 virtual guest

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -252,6 +260,18 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
> >  
> >  	BUILD_BUG_ON(CONFIG_NR_CPUS >= (1U << _Q_TAIL_CPU_BITS));
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS
> > +	/*
> > +	 * A simple test and set unfair lock
> > +	 */
> > +	if (static_key_false(&virt_unfairlocks_enabled)) {
> > +		cpu_relax();	/* Relax after a failed lock attempt */
> 
> Meh, I don't think anybody can tell the difference if you put that in or
> not, therefore don't.
> 
> > +		while (!queue_spin_trylock(lock))
> > +			cpu_relax();
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_VIRT_UNFAIR_LOCKS */
> 
> If you're really worried about those upper 24bits, you can always clear
> them when you get here.

I don't think its a problem at all; flipping the static_key requires
stop_machine, which guarantees us that there are no spinlocks held. So I
think you can actually BUG_ON() the upper 24bits.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped