linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Add an explicit barrier() to clflushopt()

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:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:07:35 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add an explicit barrier() to clflushopt()

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> That is a continual worry. To try and assuage that fear, I sent 8x
> flush gpu writes between the end of the copy and setting the "I'm done"
> flag. The definition of the GPU flush is that it both flushes all
> previous writes before it completes and only after it completes does it
> do the post-sync write (before moving onto the next command). The spec
> is always a bit hazy on what order the memory writes will be visible on
> the CPU though.
>
> Sending the 8x GPU flushes before marking "I'm done" did not fix the
> corruption.

Ok. So assuming the GPU flushes are supposed to work, it should be all good.

>> So the reason you see the old content may just be that the GPU writes
>> are still buffered on the GPU. And you adding a clflushopt on the same
>> address just changes the timing enough that you don't see the memory
>> ordering any more (or it's just much harder to see, it might still be
>> there).
>
> Indeed. So I replaced the post-clflush_cache_range() clflush() with a
> udelay(10) instead, and the corruption vanished. Putting the udelay(10)
> before the clflush_cache_range() does not fix the corruption.

Odd.

> passes, I'm inclined to point the finger at the mb() following the
> clflush_cache_range().

We have an entirely unrelated discussion about the value of "mfence"
as a memory barrier.

Mind trying to just make the memory barrier (in
arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h) be a locked op instead?

The docs say "Executions of the CLFLUSHOPT instruction are ordered
with respect to fence instructions and to locked read-modify-write
instructions; ..", so the mfence should be plenty good enough. But
nobody sane uses mfence for memory ordering (that's the other
discussion we're having), since a locked rmw instruction is faster.

So maybe it's a CPU bug. I'd still consider a GPU memory ordering bug
*way* more likely (the CPU core tensd to be better validated in my
experience), but since you're trying odd things anyway, try changing
the "mfence" to "lock; addl $0,0(%%rsp)" instead.

I doubt it makes any difference, but ..

            Linus