linux-kernel - Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier

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: <20160810183304.GK3482@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:33:04 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Susi Sonnenschein <1vier1@....de>
Subject: Re: spin_lock implicit/explicit memory barrier

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:05:37AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 20:52 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin, Hi Michael,
> > 
> > regarding commit 51d7d5205d33 ("powerpc: Add smp_mb() to 
> > arch_spin_is_locked()"):
> > 
> > For the ipc/sem code, I would like to replace the spin_is_locked() with 
> > a smp_load_acquire(), see:
> > 
> > http://git.cmpxchg.org/cgit.cgi/linux-mmots.git/tree/ipc/sem.c#n367
> > 
> > http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/ipc-semc-fix-complex_count-vs-simple-op-race.patch
> > 
> > To my understanding, I must now add a smp_mb(), otherwise it would be 
> > broken on PowerPC:
> > 
> > The approach that the memory barrier is added into spin_is_locked() 
> > doesn't work because the code doesn't use spin_is_locked().
> > 
> > Correct?
> 
> Right, otherwise you aren't properly ordered. The current powerpc locks provide
> good protection between what's inside vs. what's outside the lock but not vs.
> the lock *value* itself, so if, like you do in the sem code, use the lock
> value as something that is relevant in term of ordering, you probably need
> an explicit full barrier.
> 
> Adding Paul McKenney.

To amplify what Ben said...

Any CPU holding a given lock will see any previous accesses made under
the protection of that lock.

A CPU -not- holding the lock can see misordering.  As Ben noted, to
that non-lock-holding CPU it might appear that a write made under the
protection of that lock was made after the lock was released.  Similarly,
to that CPU it might appear that a load done under the protection of that
lock completed before the lock was acquired.  Finally, a CPU not holding
the lock might see a store by one CPU holding the lock as happening
after a load (from some other variable) by the next CPU holding that lock.

							Thanx, Paul