linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

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: <2118431661.29566.1501256295573.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:38:15 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
        gromer <gromer@...gle.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

----- On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index e9785f7aed75..33f34a201255 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2641,8 +2641,18 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct
>> *prev)
>>  	finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
>>  
>>  	fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * For CONFIG_MEMBARRIER we need a full memory barrier after the
>> +	 * rq->curr assignment. Not all architectures have one in either
>> +	 * switch_to() or switch_mm() so we use (and complement) the one
>> +	 * implied by mmdrop()'s atomic_dec_and_test().
>> +	 */
>>  	if (mm)
>>  		mmdrop(mm);
>> +	else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMBARRIER))
>> +		smp_mb();
>> +
>>  	if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) {
>>  		if (prev->sched_class->task_dead)
>>  			prev->sched_class->task_dead(prev);
>> 
>> 
> 
>> a whole bunch of architectures don't in fact need this extra barrier at all.
> 
> In fact, I'm fairly sure its only PPC.
> 
> Because only ARM64 and PPC actually implement ACQUIRE/RELEASE with
> anything other than smp_mb() (for now, Risc-V is in this same boat and
> MIPS could be if they ever sort out their fancy barriers).
> 
> TSO archs use a regular STORE for RELEASE, but all their atomics imply a
> smp_mb() and there are enough around to make one happen (typically
> mm_cpumask updates).
> 
> Everybody else, aside from ARM64 and PPC must use smp_mb() for
> ACQUIRE/RELEASE.
> 
> ARM64 has a super duper barrier in switch_to().
> 
> Which only leaves PPC stranded.. but the 'good' news is that mpe says
> they'll probably need a barrier in switch_mm() in any case.

As I pointed out in my other email, I plan to do this:

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2636,6 +2636,11 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
        vtime_task_switch(prev);
        perf_event_task_sched_in(prev, current);
        finish_lock_switch(rq, prev);
+       /*
+        * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
+        * after storing to rq->curr, before going back to user-space.
+        */
+       smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
        finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
 
        fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com