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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150724154912.GL3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:49:12 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: perf_mmap__write_tail() and control dependencies

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 04:36:20PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 04:33:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:29:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Yup, and that's why mb() expands to dmb instead of dsb in
> tools/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h (I see there's an XXX: comment
> there asking about the difference).

Thank you both!  I will therefore refrain from attempting to restrict
READ_ONCE_CTRL() to pairing with smp_store_release().  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ