linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 7/7] [PATCH] glibc: nptl: Add support for attached pthread

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: <20160402163230.GB24771@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sat, 2 Apr 2016 18:32:30 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
	Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 7/7] [PATCH] glibc: nptl: Add support for attached
 pthread_mutexes

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 06:30:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 11:09:20AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > pthread_mutexes on Linux are based on the futex mechanism. The standard futex
> > mechanism in the Linux kernel uses a global hash to store transient
> > state. Collisions on that hash can lead to performance degradation and on
> > real-time enabled kernels even to priority inversions.
> > 
> > To guarantee futexes without collisions on the global kernel hash, the kernel
> > provides a mechanism to attach to a futex. This creates futex private state
> > which avoids hash collisions and on NUMA systems also cross node memory
> > access.
> > 
> > To utilize this mechanism each thread has to attach to the futex before any
> > other operations on that futex which involve kernel interaction.
> > 
> > At pthread_mutex_init() the pthread_mutex attribute needs to be initialized
> > for attached mode via:
> > 
> >     pthread_mutexattr_setattached_np(&attr, 1);
> > 
> > All threads which are using the mutex - including the one which called
> > pthread_mutex_init() - must invoke
> > 
> >     pthread_mutex_attach_np(&mutex);
> > 
> > before any other pthread_mutex related operations.
> > 
> > Example:
> >         pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> > 	pthread_mutex_t lock;
> > 
> >         pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> >         pthread_mutexattr_setattached_np(&attr, 1);
> >         pthread_mutex_init(&lock, &attr);
> > 
> >         pthread_mutex_attach_np(&lock);
> > 
> > 	pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
> > 
> > In ptrace this should look like this:
> > 
> > 	futex(<addr>, 0x280 /* FUTEX_??? */, 1, NULL <unfinished ...>
> > 
> > 	0x280: 	 FUTEX_ATTACHED | FUTEX_PRIVATE | FUTEX_WAIT
> > 
> > To undo the attachment each involved thread needs to call
> > 
> >     pthread_mutex_detach_np(&mutex);
> >         
> > When the last user detaches the kernel state is destroyed.
> 
> So I was fully expecting pthread_mutex_{at,de}tach_np() to not exist and
> be internal to pthread_mutex_{init,destroy}().
> 
> Is there a reason this is not so?

Ah yes there is; it just isn't spelled out and I'm tired.

This is because every thread that wants to play with the mutex needs to
attach, and only one can do init.