linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release

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]

Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:53:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and
 update documentation

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for the headache ;)

Most welcome :-)

> > Does we want to go revert 12d560f4ea87 ("rcu,locking: Privatize
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()") for that same reason?
> 
> I don't think we want a straight revert. smp_mb__after_unlock_lock could
> largely die if PPC strengthened its locks, whereas smp_mb__release_acquire
> is needed by quite a few architectures.

Fair enough, lets wait for the benchmark results from the PPC people
doing that.

> > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt is updated to describe more clearly
> > > the ACQUIRE and RELEASE ordering in this area and to show an example of
> > > the new barrier in action.
> > 
> > The only nit I have is that if we revert the above it might be make
> > sense to more clearly call out the distinction between the two.
> 
> Right. Where I think we'd like to get to is:
> 
>  - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE acts as a full barrier if they operate on the same
>    variable and the ACQUIRE reads from the RELEASE
> 
>  - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE acts as a full barrier if they execute on the same
>    CPU and are interleaved with an smp_mb__release_acquire barrier.
> 
>  - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE ordering is transitive
> 
> [only the transitivity part is missing in this patch, because I lost
>  track of that discussion]
> 
> We could then use these same guarantees for UNLOCK -> LOCK in RCU,
> defining smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to be the same as
> smp_mb__release_acquire, but only applying to UNLOCK -> LOCK. That's a
> slight relaxation of how it's defined at the moment (and I guess would
> need some work on PPC?), but it keeps things consistent which is
> especially important as core locking primitives are ported over to the
> ACQUIRE/RELEASE primitives.
> 
> Thoughts?

/me like, although I'm too tired to see how those 3 rules combine to
something weaker than the current after_unlock_lock thing for PPC.

--
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/