linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock

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: <20150713221503.GD19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:15:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:16:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:41:53PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > Does that answer the question, or am I missing the point?
> > 
> > Yes, it shows that smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() has no purpose, since it
> > is defined only for PowerPC and your test above just showed that for
> > the sequence

The only purpose is to provide transitivity, but the documentation fails
to explicitly call that out.

> > 
> >   store a
> >   UNLOCK M
> >   LOCK N
> >   store b
> > 
> > a and b is always observed as an ordered pair {a,b}.
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> This is instead the sequence that is of concern:
> 
> 	store a
> 	unlock M
> 	lock N
> 	load b

So its late and that table didn't parse, but that should be ordered too.
The load of b should not be able to escape the lock N.

If only because LWSYNC is a valid RMB and any LOCK implementation must
load the lock state to observe it unlocked.

> > Additionally, the assertion in Documentation/memory_barriers.txt that
> > the sequence above can be reordered as
> > 
> >   LOCK N
> >   store b
> >   store a
> >   UNLOCK M
> > 
> > is not true on any existing arch in Linux.
> 
> It was at one time and might be again.

What would be required to make this true? I'm having a hard time seeing
how things can get reordered like that.
--
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/