linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

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: <1205506069.1647.1501602032052.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:40:32 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

----- On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Andy Lutomirski luto@...nel.org wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>> /*
>>  * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations
>>  * is required by the membarrier system call.
>>  */
>>
>> What we want to order here is:
>>
>> prev userspace memory accesses
>> schedule
>>   <full mb> (it's already there) [A]
>>   update to rq->curr changing the rq->curr->mm value
>>   <full mb> (provided by mm_cpumask updates in switch_mm on x86) [B]
> 
> If I understand this right, the issue with relying on CR3 writes is
> that the target CPU could switch to a kernel thread and back to the
> same user mm white the membarrier caller is reading its mm, right?

The current implementation of context_switch() does:

        mm = next->mm;
        oldmm = prev->active_mm;

        if (!mm)
                next->active_mm = oldmm;

        if (!prev->mm) {
                prev->active_mm = NULL;
                rq->prev_mm = oldmm;
        }

so basically the only way to have a non-null rq->prev_mm when we
reach finish_task_switch() is to have a non-null prev->active_mm
in context_switch (kernel thread).

finish_task_switch() has:

struct mm_struct *mm = rq->prev_mm;
[...]
if (mm)
        mmdrop(mm);

which issues a full memory barrier through atomic_dec_and_test(). This
happens to take care of this kthread->uthread scenario. I think it would
be important to document though.

Thanks,

Mathieu


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