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: <20170727144703.v2gxtrv4plcduj2l@tardis>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2017 22:47:03 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:36:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > The reporting of the quiescent state will acquire the leaf rcu_node
> > > structure's lock, with an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which will
> > > one way or another be a full memory barrier.  So the reorderings
> > > cannot happen.
> > > 
> > > Unless I am missing something subtle.  ;-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in ARM64 is a no-op, and ARM64's lock
> > doesn't provide a smp_mb().
> > 
> > So my point is more like: synchronize_sched() happens to be a
> > sys_membarrier() because of some implementation detail, and if some day
> > we come up with a much cheaper way to implement sched flavor
> > RCU(hopefully!), synchronize_sched() may be not good for the job. So at
> > least, we'd better document this somewhere?
> 
> Last I heard, ARM's unlock/lock acted as a full barrier.  Will?
> 
> Please see the synchronize_sched() comment header for the documentation
> you are asking for.  And the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" section of
> Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html.
> 

All those barrier guarantees are subject to a RCU read-side critical
section with a synchonize_*(), IIRC, for example:

 * On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_sched() returns,
 * each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full memory barrier since the
 * end of its last RCU-sched read-side critical section whose beginning
 * preceded the call to synchronize_sched().  In addition, each CPU having

, which is not the case for a quiesent state without a read-side
critical section(i.e. non-context-switch quiesent state for sched Flavor)

I've read those requirements and could not find one to explain why there
will be a full barrier emitted in an interrupted user-space program.

Regards,
Boqun

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > 						Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > 					<return to user space>                        |    |
> > > > 					read Y; --------------------------------------+----+
> > > > 	store X;			                                              |
> > > > 					{read X}(reordered) <-------------------------+
> > > > 
> > > > I assume the timer interrupt handler, which interrupts a user space and
> > > > reports a quiesent state for sched flavor RCU, may not have a smp_mb()
> > > > in some code path.
> > > > 
> > > > I may miss something subtle, but it just not very obvious how
> > > > synchronize_sched() will guarantee a remote CPU running in userspace to
> > > > do a smp_mb() before it returns, this is at least not in RCU
> > > > requirements, right?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Boqun
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)