linux-kernel - Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

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: <20161109185743.GN17771@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:57:43 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

Hi Paul,

Just a couple of comments, but they be more suited to Andy.

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:38:08AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> @@ -355,10 +373,33 @@ static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since(struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp, int snap)
>  static void rcu_dynticks_momentary_idle(void)
>  {
>  	struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> -	int special = atomic_add_return(2, &rdtp->dynticks);
> +	int special = atomic_add_return(2 * RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR,
> +					&rdtp->dynticks);
>  
>  	/* It is illegal to call this from idle state. */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(special & 0x1));
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(special & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR));
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Set the special (bottom) bit of the specified CPU so that it
> + * will take special action (such as flushing its TLB) on the
> + * next exit from an extended quiescent state.  Returns true if
> + * the bit was successfully set, or false if the CPU was not in
> + * an extended quiescent state.
> + */

Given that TLB maintenance on arm is handled in hardware (no need for IPI),
I'd like to avoid this work if at all possible. However, without seeing the
call site I can't tell if it's optional.

> +bool rcu_eqs_special_set(int cpu)
> +{
> +	int old;
> +	int new;
> +	struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, cpu);
> +
> +	do {
> +		old = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks);
> +		if (old & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)
> +			return false;
> +		new = old | RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK;
> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&rdtp->dynticks, old, new) != old);
> +	return true;
>  }

Can this be a cmpxchg_relaxed? What is it attempting to order?

Will