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: <20170731133619.dj7z4gjw7gdfx7wb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:36:19 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
        Maged Michael <maged.michael@...il.com>, gromer@...gle.com,
        Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
        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 Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:20:59PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> > 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.
> 
> I may have been sleep deprived. We have a patch, probably soon to be
> merged, which will add a smp_mb() in switch_mm() but *only* when we add
> a CPU to mm_cpumask, ie. when we run on a CPU we haven't run on before.
> 
> I'm not across membarrier enough to know if that's sufficient, but it
> seems unlikely?

Correct, that would be insufficient. We'd need it every time switch_mm()
does indeed change the effective mm.

Now you also spoke of looking at clearing bits in mm_cpumask(), and I
suspect that if you do that, you end up having to do a barrier every
time.