linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v4 5/7] locking, arch: Update spin_unlock

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:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:57:00 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman.Long@....com,
	tj@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	davem@...emloft.net, oleg@...hat.com,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
	hofrat@...dl.org, jejb@...isc-linux.org, chris@...kel.net,
	rth@...ddle.net, dhowells@...hat.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
	rkuo@...eaurora.org, vgupta@...opsys.com, james.hogan@...tec.com,
	realmz6@...il.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp, tony.luck@...el.com,
	cmetcalf@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 5/7] locking, arch: Update spin_unlock_wait()

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:34:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:24:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:52:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > About spin_unlock_wait() on ppc, I actually have a fix pending review:
> > > 
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461130033-70898-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com
> > 
> > > that patch fixed a different problem when people want to pair a
> > > spin_unlock_wait() with a spin_lock().
> > 
> > Argh, indeed, and I think qspinlock is still broken there :/ But my poor
> > brain is about to give in for the day.
> 
> This 'replaces' commit:
> 
>   54cf809b9512 ("locking,qspinlock: Fix spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait()")
> 
> and seems to still work with the test case from that thread while
> getting rid of the extra barriers.
> 
> ---
>  include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h | 37 +++++++----------------------------
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c      | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> index 6bd05700d8c9..9e3dff16d5dc 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h
> @@ -28,30 +28,13 @@
>   */
>  static __always_inline int queued_spin_is_locked(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * queued_spin_lock_slowpath() can ACQUIRE the lock before
> -	 * issuing the unordered store that sets _Q_LOCKED_VAL.
> -	 *
> -	 * See both smp_cond_acquire() sites for more detail.
> -	 *
> -	 * This however means that in code like:
> -	 *
> -	 *   spin_lock(A)		spin_lock(B)
> -	 *   spin_unlock_wait(B)	spin_is_locked(A)
> -	 *   do_something()		do_something()
> +	/* 
> +	 * See queued_spin_unlock_wait().
>  	 *
> -	 * Both CPUs can end up running do_something() because the store
> -	 * setting _Q_LOCKED_VAL will pass through the loads in
> -	 * spin_unlock_wait() and/or spin_is_locked().
> -	 *
> -	 * Avoid this by issuing a full memory barrier between the spin_lock()
> -	 * and the loads in spin_unlock_wait() and spin_is_locked().
> -	 *
> -	 * Note that regular mutual exclusion doesn't care about this
> -	 * delayed store.
> +	 * Any !0 state indicates it is locked, even if _Q_LOCKED_VAL
> +	 * isn't immediately observable.
>  	 */
> -	smp_mb();
> -	return atomic_read(&lock->val) & _Q_LOCKED_MASK;
> +	return !!atomic_read(&lock->val);
>  }

I'm failing to keep up here :(

The fast-path code in queued_spin_lock is just an atomic_cmpxchg_acquire.
If that's built out of LL/SC instructions, then why don't we need a barrier
here in queued_spin_is_locked?

Or is the decision now that only spin_unlock_wait is required to enforce
this ordering?

Will