linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86) (v12)

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: <20150316222611.782cc0e4@grimm.local.home>
Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:26:11 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
 barrier (x86) (v12)


[ Removed npiggen@...nel.dk as I keep getting bounces from that addr ]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:45:25 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
> > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, "Steven Rostedt"
> > <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Nicholas Miell" <nmiell@...cast.net>,
> > "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Alan Cox"
> > <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Lai Jiangshan" <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, "Stephen Hemminger"
> > <stephen@...workplumber.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Josh Triplett" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
> > "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>, "Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...nel.dk>
> > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:54:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86) (v12)

Can you please fix your mail client to not include the entire header in
your replies please.

> Let's consider the following memory barrier scenario performed in
> user-space on an architecture with very relaxed ordering. PowerPC comes
> to mind.
> 
> https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/
> scenario 12:
> 
> CPU 0                   CPU 1
> CAO(x) = 1;             r3 = CAO(y);
> cmm_smp_wmb();          cmm_smp_rmb();
> CAO(y) = 1;             r4 = CAO(x);
> 
> BUG_ON(r3 == 1 && r4 == 0)
> 
> 
> We tweak it to use sys_membarrier on CPU 1, and a simple compiler
> barrier() on CPU 0:
> 
> CPU 0                   CPU 1
> CAO(x) = 1;             r3 = CAO(y);
> barrier();              sys_membarrier();
> CAO(y) = 1;             r4 = CAO(x);
> 
> BUG_ON(r3 == 1 && r4 == 0)
> 
> Now if CPU 1 executes sys_membarrier while CPU 0 is preempted after both
> stores, we have:
> 
> CPU 0                           CPU 1
> CAO(x) = 1;
>   [1st store is slow to
>    reach other cores]
> CAO(y) = 1;
>   [2nd store reaches other
>    cores more quickly]
> [preempted]
>                                 r3 = CAO(y)
>                                   (may see y = 1)
>                                 sys_membarrier()
> Scheduler changes rq->curr.
>                                 skips CPU 0, because rq->curr has
>                                   been updated.
>                                 [return to userspace]
>                                 r4 = CAO(x)
>                                   (may see x = 0)
>                                 BUG_ON(r3 == 1 && r4 == 0) -> fails.
> load_cr3, with implied
>   memory barrier, comes
>   after CPU 1 has read "x".
> 
> The only way to make this scenario work is if a memory barrier is added
> before updating rq->curr. (we could also do a similar scenario for the
> needed barrier after store to rq->curr).

Hmm, I wonder if anything were to break if rq->curr was updated after
the context_switch() call?

Would that help?

	this_cpu_write(saved_next, next);
	rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next);
	rq->curr = this_cpu_read(saved_next);

As I recently found out that this_cpu_read/write() is not that nice on
all architectures, something else may need to be updated. Or we can add
a temp variable on the rq.

	rq->saved_next = next;
	rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next);
	rq->curr = rq->saved_next;

-- Steve

--
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/