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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20151007075114.GW2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:51:14 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp_rnp() to allow consolidation On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:58:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:29:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:29:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > +static void __maybe_unused rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, > > > + struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > + unsigned long mask; > > > + > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags); > > > > Normally we require a comment with barriers, explaining the order and > > the pairing etc.. :-) > > > > > + smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); > > Hmmmm... That is not good. > > Worse yet, I am missing comments on most of the pre-existing barriers > of this form. Yes I noticed.. :/ > The purpose is to enforce the heavy-weight grace-period memory-ordering > guarantees documented in the synchronize_sched() header comment and > elsewhere. > They pair with anything you might use to check for violation > of these guarantees, or, simiarly, any ordering that you might use when > relying on these guarantees. I'm sure you know what that means, but I've no clue ;-) That is, I wouldn't know where to start looking in the RCU implementation to verify the barrier is either needed or sufficient. Unless you mean _everywhere_ :-) > I could add something like "/* Enforce GP memory ordering. */" > > Or perhaps "/* See synchronize_sched() header. */" > > I do not propose reproducing the synchronize_sched() header on each > of these. That would be verbose, even for me! ;-) > > Other thoughts? Well, this is an UNLOCK+LOCK on non-matching lock variables upgrade to full barrier thing, right? To me its not clear which UNLOCK we even match here. I've just read the sync_sched() header, but that doesn't help me either, so referring to that isn't really helpful either. In any case, I don't want to make too big a fuzz here, but I just stumbled over a lot of unannotated barriers and figured I ought to say something about it. -- 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