linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] mm/slub: fix lockups on PREEMPT && !SMP kernels

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, 19 Mar 2015 21:13:38 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] mm/slub: fix lockups on PREEMPT && !SMP kernels

2015-03-19 0:21 GMT+09:00 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>:
> Hi,
>
>> >         do {
>> >                 tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
>> >                 c = raw_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
>> > -       } while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && unlikely(tid != c->tid));
>> > +       } while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) &&
>> > +                unlikely(tid != READ_ONCE(c->tid)));
>
> [...]
>
>> Could you show me generated code again?
>
> The code generated without this patch in !SMP && PREEMPT kernels is:
>
> /* Hoisted load of c->tid */
> ffffffc00016d3c4:       f9400404        ldr     x4, [x0,#8]
> /* this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid)) -- buggy, see [1] */
> ffffffc00016d3c8:       f9400401        ldr     x1, [x0,#8]
> ffffffc00016d3cc:       eb04003f        cmp     x1, x4
> ffffffc00016d3d0:       54ffffc1        b.ne    ffffffc00016d3c8 <slab_alloc_node.constprop.82+0x30>
>
> The code generated with this patch in !SMP && PREEMPT kernels is:
>
> /* this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid)) -- buggy, see [1] */
> ffffffc00016d3c4:       f9400401        ldr     x1, [x0,#8]
> /* load of c->tid */
> ffffffc00016d3c8:       f9400404        ldr     x4, [x0,#8]
> ffffffc00016d3cc:       eb04003f        cmp     x1, x4
> ffffffc00016d3d0:       54ffffa1        b.ne    ffffffc00016d3c4 <slab_alloc_node.constprop.82+0x2c>
>
> Note that with the patch the branch results in both loads being
> performed again.
> Given that in !SMP kernels we know that the loads _must_ happen on the
> same CPU, I think we could go a bit further with the loop condition:
>
>         while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) &&
>                !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) &&
>                unlikely(tid != READ_ONCE(c->tid)));
>
> The barrier afterwards should be sufficient to order the load of the tid
> against subsequent accesses to the other cpu_slab fields.
>
>> What we need to check is redoing whole things in the loop.
>> Previous attached code seems to me that it already did
>> refetching c->tid in the loop and this patch looks only handle
>> refetching c->tid.
>
> The refetch in the loop is this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid), not the load
> of c->tid (which is hoisted above the loop).

Okay. Now, I'm fine with your change.

>> READ_ONCE(c->tid) will trigger redoing 'tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid)'?
>
> I was under the impression that this_cpu operations would always result
> in an access, much like the *_ONCE accessors, so we should aways redo
> the access for this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid). Is that not the case?

I'm not the expert on that operation. Christoph could answer it.

> Mark.
>
> [1] The arm64 this_cpu * operations are currently buggy. We generate the
>     percpu address into a register, then perform the access with
>     separate instructions (and could be preempted between the two).
>     Steve Capper is currently fixing this.
>
>     However, the hoisting of the c->tid load could happen regardless,
>     whenever raw_cpu_ptr(c) can be evaluated at compile time.

Okay.

Thanks.
--
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/