linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/6] doc: Update memory-barriers.txt for read-to-write dependencies

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:   Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:36:25 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/6] doc: Update memory-barriers.txt for read-to-write dependencies

The memory-barriers.txt document contains an obsolete passage stating that
smp_read_barrier_depends() is required to force ordering for read-to-write
dependencies.  We now know that this is not required, even for DEC Alpha.
This commit therefore updates this passage to state that read-to-write
dependencies are respected even without smp_read_barrier_depends().

Reported-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>
[ paulmck: Reference control-dependencies sections and use WRITE_ONCE()
  per Will Deacon.  Correctly place split-cache paragraph while there. ]
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index c4ddfcd5ee32..e2ee0a1c299a 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -594,7 +594,24 @@ between the address load and the data load:
 This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
 third possibility from arising.
 
-A data-dependency barrier must also order against dependent writes:
+
+[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
+machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
+even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
+lines.  The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the
+variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line.  Then, if the
+even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the
+odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B),
+but the old value of the variable B (2).
+
+
+A data-dependency barrier is not required to order dependent writes
+because the CPUs that the Linux kernel supports don't do writes
+until they are certain (1) that the write will actually happen, (2)
+of the location of the write, and (3) of the value to be written.
+But please carefully read the "CONTROL DEPENDENCIES" section and the
+Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.txt file:  The compiler can and does
+break dependencies in a great many highly creative ways.
 
 	CPU 1		      CPU 2
 	===============	      ===============
@@ -603,29 +620,19 @@ A data-dependency barrier must also order against dependent writes:
 	<write barrier>
 	WRITE_ONCE(P, &B);
 			      Q = READ_ONCE(P);
-			      <data dependency barrier>
-			      *Q = 5;
+			      WRITE_ONCE(*Q, 5);
 
-The data-dependency barrier must order the read into Q with the store
-into *Q.  This prohibits this outcome:
+Therefore, no data-dependency barrier is required to order the read into
+Q with the store into *Q.  In other words, this outcome is prohibited,
+even without a data-dependency barrier:
 
 	(Q == &B) && (B == 4)
 
 Please note that this pattern should be rare.  After all, the whole point
 of dependency ordering is to -prevent- writes to the data structure, along
 with the expensive cache misses associated with those writes.  This pattern
-can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the ordering
-prevents such records from being lost.
-
-
-[!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
-machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
-even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache
-lines.  The pointer P might be stored in an odd-numbered cache line, and the
-variable B might be stored in an even-numbered cache line.  Then, if the
-even-numbered bank of the reading CPU's cache is extremely busy while the
-odd-numbered bank is idle, one can see the new value of the pointer P (&B),
-but the old value of the variable B (2).
+can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the CPUs'
+naturally occurring ordering prevents such records from being lost.
 
 
 The data dependency barrier is very important to the RCU system,
-- 
2.5.2