linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/completion: completion_done() should serialize with complete()

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:	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:02:52 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, waiman.long@...com,
	raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/completion: completion_done() should serialize
 with complete()

On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 13:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 20:59 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Commit de30ec47302c "Remove unnecessary ->wait.lock serialization when
> > reading completion state" was not correct, without lock/unlock the code
> > like stop_machine_from_inactive_cpu()
> > 
> > 	while (!completion_done())
> > 		cpu_relax();
> > 
> > can return before complete() finishes its spin_unlock() which writes to
> > this memory. And spin_unlock_wait().
> 
> How about reverting the patch altogether?
> 
> This was never a problem nor have I ever seen a performance issues in
> completions that would merit these lockless checks. The commit changelog
> has *zero* information, so I don't know if this was ever a real issue.
> 

hmm I guess you're patch is more optimal tho, because we don't update
the lock, less cacheline bouncing issues etc.

--
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/