linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp

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: <20151007110120.GE17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 13:01:20 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	josh@...htriplett.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp_rnp() to
 allow consolidation

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:42:05AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> 
> > 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_
> > :-)
> 
> One example is the new membarrier system call. It relies on synchronize_sched()
> to enforce this:

That again doesn't explain which UNLOCKs with non-matching lock values
it pairs with and what particular ordering is important here.

I'm fully well aware of what sync_sched() guarantees and how one can use
it, that is not the issue, what I'm saying is that a generic description
of sync_sched() doesn't help in figuring out WTH that barrier is for and
which other code I should also inspect.
--
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/