linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 167/210] bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit

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: <20160410183532.569215472@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Sun, 10 Apr 2016 11:36:28 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 167/210] bitops: Do not default to __clear_bit() for __clear_bit_unlock()

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>

commit f75d48644c56a31731d17fa693c8175328957e1d upstream.

__clear_bit_unlock() is a special little snowflake. While it carries the
non-atomic '__' prefix, it is specifically documented to pair with
test_and_set_bit() and therefore should be 'somewhat' atomic.

Therefore the generic implementation of __clear_bit_unlock() cannot use
the fully non-atomic __clear_bit() as a default.

If an arch is able to do better; is must provide an implementation of
__clear_bit_unlock() itself.

Specifically, this came up as a result of hackbench livelock'ing in
slab_lock() on ARC with SMP + SLUB + !LLSC.

The issue was incorrect pairing of atomic ops.

 slab_lock() -> bit_spin_lock() -> test_and_set_bit()
 slab_unlock() -> __bit_spin_unlock() -> __clear_bit()

The non serializing __clear_bit() was getting "lost"

 80543b8e:	ld_s       r2,[r13,0] <--- (A) Finds PG_locked is set
 80543b90:	or         r3,r2,1    <--- (B) other core unlocks right here
 80543b94:	st_s       r3,[r13,0] <--- (C) sets PG_locked (overwrites unlock)

Fixes ARC STAR 9000817404 (and probably more).

Reported-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Tested-by: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@...isc-linux.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160309114054.GJ6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h |   14 +++++++-------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/lock.h
@@ -29,16 +29,16 @@ do {					\
  * @nr: the bit to set
  * @addr: the address to start counting from
  *
- * This operation is like clear_bit_unlock, however it is not atomic.
- * It does provide release barrier semantics so it can be used to unlock
- * a bit lock, however it would only be used if no other CPU can modify
- * any bits in the memory until the lock is released (a good example is
- * if the bit lock itself protects access to the other bits in the word).
+ * A weaker form of clear_bit_unlock() as used by __bit_lock_unlock(). If all
+ * the bits in the word are protected by this lock some archs can use weaker
+ * ops to safely unlock.
+ *
+ * See for example x86's implementation.
  */
 #define __clear_bit_unlock(nr, addr)	\
 do {					\
-	smp_mb();			\
-	__clear_bit(nr, addr);		\
+	smp_mb__before_atomic();	\
+	clear_bit(nr, addr);		\
 } while (0)

 #endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_LOCK_H_ */