linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

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: <20170727102231.GA20746@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:22:32 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:53:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 06:01:15PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > Another alternative for a MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED_EXPEDITED would be rate-limiting
> > per thread. For instance, we could add a new "ulimit" that would bound the
> > number of expedited membarrier per thread that can be done per millisecond,
> > and switch to synchronize_sched() whenever a thread goes beyond that limit
> > for the rest of the time-slot.
> 
> You forgot to ask yourself how you could abuse this.. just spawn more
> threads.
> 
> Per-thread limits are nearly useless, because spawning new threads is
> cheap.
> 
> > A RT system that really cares about not having userspace sending IPIs
> > to all cpus could set the ulimit value to 0, which would always use
> > synchronize_sched().
> > 
> > Thoughts ?
> 
> So I really don't like SHARED_EXPEDITED, and your use-cases (from later
> emails) makes me think sys_membarrier() should have a pointer argument
> to identify the shared mapping.
> 
> But even then, iterating the rmap for something that has 1000+ maps
> isn't going to be nice or fast, even in kernel space.
> 
> Another crazy idea is using madvise() for this. The new MADV_MEMBAR
> could revoke PROT_WRITE and PROT_READ for all extant PTEs. Then the
> tasks attempting access will fault and the fault handler can figure out
> if it still needs to issue a MB or not before reinstating the PTE.

If you did that, wouldn't you need to leave the faulting entries intact
until all CPUs with the mm scheduled have either faulted or
context-switched? We don't have per-cpu permission bits in the page tables,
unfortunately.

Will