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: <1437023695.28088.29.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:14:55 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	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>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 15:03 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 12:00 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > That would fix the problem with smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), but not
> > the original worry we had about loads happening before the SC in lock.
> 
> However I think isync fixes *that* :-) The problem with isync is as you
> said, it's not a -memory- barrier per-se, it's an execution barrier /
> context synchronizing instruction. The combination stwcx. + bne + isync
> however prevents the execution of anything past the isync until the
> stwcx has completed and the bne has been "decided", which prevents loads
> from leaking into the LL/SC loop. It will also prevent a store in the
> lock from being issued before the stwcx. has completed. It does *not*
> prevent as far as I can tell another unrelated store before the lock
> from leaking into the lock, including the one used to unlock a different
> lock.

Except that the architecture says:

<<
Because a Store Conditional instruction may com-
plete before its store has been performed, a condi-
tional Branch instruction that depends on the CR0
value set by a Store Conditional instruction does
not order the Store Conditional's store with respect
to storage accesses caused by instructions that
follow the Branch
>>

So isync in lock in architecturally incorrect, despite being what the
architecture recommends using, yay !

Ben.


--
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/