linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.19-rc3

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: <20150106173808.GB5280@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:38:08 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 07:55:39AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> [ +cc Paul McKenney ]
> 
> On 01/06/2015 07:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:01:21AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:48:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Looking at that closure stuff, why is there an smp_mb() in
> >>> closure_wake_up() ? Typically wakeup only needs to imply a wmb.
> >>>
> >>> Also note that __closure_wake_up() starts with a fully serializing
> >>> instruction (xchg) and thereby already implies the full barrier.
> >>
> >> Probably no good reason, that code is pretty old :)
> >>
> >> If I was to hazard a guess, I had my own lockless linked lists before llist.h
> >> existed and perhaps I did it with atomic_xchg() - which was at least documented
> >> to not imply a barrier. I suppose it should just be dropped.
> > 
> > We (probably me) should probably audit all the atomic_xchg()
> > implementations and documentation and fix that. I was very much under
> > the impression it should imply a full barrier (and it certainly does on
> > x86), the documentation should state the rule that any atomic_ function
> > that returns a result is fully serializing, therefore, because
> > atomic_xchg() has a return value, it should too.
> 
> memory-barriers.txt and atomic_ops.txt appear to contradict each other here,
> but I think that's because atomic_ops.txt has drifted toward an
> arch-implementer's POV:
> 
> 260:atomic_xchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
> 
> All the serializing atomic operations have descriptions like this.

I am not seeing the contradiction.

You posted the relevant line from atomic_ops.txt.  The relevant passage
from memory-barriers.txt is as follows:

	Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and
	returns information about the state (old or new) implies an
	SMP-conditional general memory barrier (smp_mb()) on each side
	of the actual operation (with the exception of explicit lock
	operations, described later).  These include:

		xchg();
		...
		atomic_xchg();			atomic_long_xchg();

So it appears to me that both documents require full barriers before and
after any atomic exchange operation in SMP builds.  Therefore, any
SMP-capable architecture that omits these barriers is buggy.

So, what am I missing here?

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/