linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl

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:	Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:27:52 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	manfred@...orfullife.com, dave@...olabs.net, will.deacon@....com,
	boqun.feng@...il.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
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:23:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 05:08:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 11:38:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:48:38PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 25 May 2016 09:27 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > For your example, but keeping the compiler in check:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	if (READ_ONCE(a))
> > > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> > > > > 	smp_rmb();
> > > > > 	WRITE_ONCE(c, 2);
> > > 
> > > So I think it example is broken. The store to @c is not in fact
> > > dependent on the condition of @a.
> > 
> > At first glance, the compiler could pull the write to "c" above the
> > conditional, but the "memory" constraint in smp_rmb() prevents this.
> > From a hardware viewpoint, the write to "c" does depend on the "if",
> > as the conditional branch does precede that write in execution order.
> > 
> > But yes, this is using smp_rmb() in a very strange way, if that is
> > what you are getting at.
> 
> Well, the CPU could decide that the store to C happens either way around
> the branch. I'm not sure I'd rely on CPUs not being _that_ clever.
> 
> 	test	%a, $0
> 	jnz	1f
> 	mov	$1, %b
> 1:	mov	$2, %c
> 
> Its not too much to ask the CPU to look ahead 2 instructions to figure
> out the store into c is going to happen unconditionally.
> 
> I would really only rely on stores immediately dependent on the
> conditional.

Ah, interrupts could observe the difference, which is your execution
order constraint. So yes, maybe.

I'm still rather hesitant on this.