linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless receive

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: <1433443289.2320.26.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:41:29 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipc,msg: provide barrier pairings for lockless
 receive

On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 19:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to
> > to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still
> > performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however,
> > the proper CPU-CPU interactions pairing on the receiver
> > side which busy-waits for the message. Similarly, we do
> > not need a full smp_mb, and can relax the semantics for
> > the writer and reader sides of the message. This is safe
> > as we are only ordering loads and stores to r_msg. And in
> > both smp_wmb and smp_rmb, there are no stores after the
> > calls _anyway_.
> I like the idea, the pairing in ipc is not good.
> Another one is still open in sem.

Hmm for sems are you referring to spinning on ->status in
get_queue_result() while another task is performing a wakeup in between
wake_up_sem_queue_prepare() and wake_up_sem_queue_do()?

> 
> Perhaps we should formalize it a bit more, so that it is easy to find 
> which barrier pair belongs together.
> It is only an idea, but right now there are too many bugs.

Good point, however, what do you think of the below instead? Makes it
crystal clear, imho.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

diff --git a/ipc/msg.c b/ipc/msg.c
index 2b6fdbb..ce7bf50 100644
--- a/ipc/msg.c
+++ b/ipc/msg.c
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ static void expunge_all(struct msg_queue *msq, int res)
 		 * or dealing with -EAGAIN cases. See lockless receive part 1
 		 * and 2 in do_msgrcv().
 		 */
-		smp_mb();
+		smp_wmb(); /* barrier (B) */
 		msr->r_msg = ERR_PTR(res);
 	}
 }
@@ -580,7 +580,8 @@ static inline int pipelined_send(struct msg_queue *msq, struct msg_msg *msg)
 				/* initialize pipelined send ordering */
 				msr->r_msg = NULL;
 				wake_up_process(msr->r_tsk);
-				smp_mb(); /* see barrier comment below */
+				/* barrier (B) see barrier comment below */
+				smp_wmb();
 				msr->r_msg = ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
 			} else {
 				msr->r_msg = NULL;
@@ -589,11 +590,12 @@ static inline int pipelined_send(struct msg_queue *msq, struct msg_msg *msg)
 				wake_up_process(msr->r_tsk);
 				/*
 				 * Ensure that the wakeup is visible before
-				 * setting r_msg, as the receiving end depends
-				 * on it. See lockless receive part 1 and 2 in
-				 * do_msgrcv().
+				 * setting r_msg, as the receiving can otherwise
+				 * exit - once r_msg is set, the receiver can
+				 * continue. See lockless receive part 1 and 2
+				 * in do_msgrcv(). Barrier (B).
 				 */
-				smp_mb();
+				smp_wmb();
 				msr->r_msg = msg;
 
 				return 1;
@@ -932,12 +934,38 @@ long do_msgrcv(int msqid, void __user *buf, size_t bufsz, long msgtyp, int msgfl
 		/* Lockless receive, part 2:
 		 * Wait until pipelined_send or expunge_all are outside of
 		 * wake_up_process(). There is a race with exit(), see
-		 * ipc/mqueue.c for the details.
+		 * ipc/mqueue.c for the details. The correct serialization
+		 * ensures that a receiver cannot continue without the wakeup
+		 * being visibible _before_ setting r_msg:
+		 *
+		 * CPU 0                             CPU 1
+		 * <loop receiver>
+		 *   smp_rmb(); (A) <-- pair -.      <waker thread>
+		 *   <load ->r_msg>           |        msr->r_msg = NULL;
+		 *                            |        wakeup_process()
+		 * <continue>                 `------> smp_wmb(); (B)
+		 *                                     msr->r_msg = msg;
+		 *
+		 * Where (A) orders the message value read and where (B) orders
+		 * the write to the futex -- done in both pipelined_send and
+		 * expunge_all.		 *
 		 */
-		msg = (struct msg_msg *)msr_d.r_msg;
-		while (msg == NULL) {
-			cpu_relax();
+		for (;;) {
+			/*
+			 * Pairs with writer barrier in pipelined_send
+			 * or expunge_all.
+			 */
+			smp_rmb(); /* barrier (A) */
 			msg = (struct msg_msg *)msr_d.r_msg;
+			if (msg)
+				break;
+
+			/*
+			 * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier
+			 * which forces everything in this loop to be
+			 * re-loaded.
+			 */
+			cpu_relax();
 		}
 
 		/* Lockless receive, part 3:


--
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/