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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170801081230.GF6524@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:12:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "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>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:00:47PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Thanks for this, I'll take a look. This should be a good start as a stress
> test, but I'd also be interested in some application. The reason being that
> for example using runqueue locks may give reasonable maximum throughput
> numbers, but could cause some latency or slowdown when it's used in more
> realistic scenario.

Given this is an unprivileged interface we have to consider DoS and
other such lovely things.  And since we cannot use mm_cpumask() we're
stuck with for_each_online_cpu().

Combined that means that using rq->lock is completely out of the
question, some numbnut doing 'for (;;) sys_membarrier();' can
completely wreck the system.

Yes, it might work for 'normal' workloads, but the interference
potential is just too big.

I have the same problem with Paul's synchronize_rcu_expedited() patch,
that is a machine wide IPI spray and will interfere with unrelated work.