linux-kernel - Re: perf_mmap__write_tail() and control dependencies

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: <20150724153316.GL19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:33:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: perf_mmap__write_tail() and control dependencies

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:29:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Peter,
> 
> The ring-buffer code uses control dependencies, and the shiny new
> READ_ONCE_CTRL() is now in mainline.  I was idly curious about whether
> the write side could use smp_store_release(), and I found this:
> 
> static inline void perf_mmap__write_tail(struct perf_mmap *md, u64 tail)
> {
> 	struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = md->base;
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * ensure all reads are done before we write the tail out.
> 	 */
> 	mb();
> 	pc->data_tail = tail;
> }
> 
> I see mb() rather than smp_mb().  Did I find the correct code for the
> write side?  If so, why mb() rather than smp_mb()?  To serialize against
> MMIO interactions with hardware counters or some such?

This is userspace, it doesn't patch itself depending on if its run on an
SMP machine or not.
--
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/