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: <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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists