linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] wait: Provide infrastructure to deal with nested blocking

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, 2 Oct 2014 23:21:08 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, ilya.dryomov@...tank.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] wait: Provide infrastructure to deal with nested
	blocking

On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:02:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +int woken_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> > > +{
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Although this function is called under waitqueue lock, LOCK
> > > +	 * doesn't imply write barrier and the users expects write
> > > +	 * barrier semantics on wakeup functions.  The following
> > > +	 * smp_wmb() is equivalent to smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up()
> > > +	 * and is paired with set_mb() in wait_woken().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	smp_wmb(); /* C */
> > > +	wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
> >
> > Perhaps it is just me, but I was a bit confused by the comment above wmb().
> > Afaics, it is not that "users expects write barrier semantics", just we
> > need to ensure that
> >
> > 	CONDITION = true;
> > 	wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
> >
> > can't be reordered (and this differs from smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up()).
> > Otherwise we can obviously race with
> >
> > 	// wait_woken() -> set_mb()
> > 	wait->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
> > 	mb();
> >
> > 	if (CONDITION)
> > 		break;
> >
>
> Yes, that comment could be clearer. It is however, to me, the 'same' as
> a regular wakeup in that we need to separate whatever state changes
> before the wakeup (CONDITION=true typically) from whatever writes are
> required to affect the wakeup (->state=TASK_RUNNING typically,

Not really, ttwu() needs to serialize CONDITION=true and the reading of
task->state. And for the waiter its state is write only, it doesn't need
to check it.

While in this case we need to separate CONDITION and WQ_FLAG_WOKEN, and
the waiter needs to check them in the right order.

But please forget, the code looks clear with or without the comment, and
"paired with set_mb() in wait_woken()" should explain the intent anyway.

Oleg.

--
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/