linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1663138547.13906.1505851015752.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:56:55 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements

----- On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:26 PM, Andrea Parri parri.andrea@...il.com wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:01:22PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Document the membarrier requirement on having a full memory barrier in
>> __schedule() after coming from user-space, before storing to rq->curr.
>> It is provided by smp_mb__before_spinlock() in __schedule().
>> 
>> Document that membarrier requires a full barrier on transition from
>> kernel thread to userspace thread. We currently have an implicit barrier
>> from atomic_dec_and_test() in mmdrop() that ensures this.
>> 
>> The x86 switch_mm_irqs_off() full barrier is currently provided by many
>> cpumask update operations as well as write_cr3(). Document that
>> write_cr3() provides this barrier.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> CC: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> CC: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
>> CC: Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>
>> CC: Maged Michael <maged.michael@...il.com>
>> CC: gromer@...gle.com
>> CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>
>> CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>> CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
>> CC: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>> CC: Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/mm/tlb.c        | 5 +++++
>>  include/linux/sched/mm.h | 4 ++++
>>  kernel/sched/core.c      | 9 +++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> index 1ab3821f9e26..fa3bbe048af0 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> @@ -144,6 +144,11 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct
>> mm_struct *next,
>>  	}
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
>> +	 * after coming from user-space, before storing to rq->curr.
> 
> I'm confused: isn't this case covered by the
> 
>   rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>   smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> 
> below (all archs)? You meant "before returning to user-space, after
> storing to rq->curr"?

Right, my bad.

> 
> 
>> +	 * Writing to CR3 provides that full memory barrier.
>> +	 */
>>  	if (real_prev == next) {
>>  		VM_BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[prev_asid].ctx_id) !=
>>  			  next->context.ctx_id);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
>> index df4005e2c4cf..f3bc261fe7c7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static inline void mmgrab(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>  extern void __mmdrop(struct mm_struct *);
>>  static inline void mmdrop(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>  {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The implicit full barrier implied by atomic_dec_and_test is
>> +	 * required by the membarrier system call.
> 
> "before returning to user-space, after storing to rq->curr", right?

Yes.

I'll send an updated patch to Paul. Thanks for the review!

Mathieu

> 
> (your commit says "on transition from kernel thread _to_ userspace"
> regarding mmdrop()).
> 
>  Andrea
> 
> 
>> +	 */
>>  	if (unlikely(atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_count)))
>>  		__mmdrop(mm);
>>  }
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index c5c1b2c51807..48d524b18868 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2648,6 +2648,12 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct
>> *prev)
>>  	finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
>>  
>>  	fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * When transitioning from a kernel thread to a userspace
>> +	 * thread, mmdrop()'s implicit full barrier is required by the
>> +	 * membarrier system call, because the current active_mm can
>> +	 * become the current mm without going through switch_mm().
>> +	 */
>>  	if (mm)
>>  		mmdrop(mm);
>>  	if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) {
>> @@ -3289,6 +3295,9 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
>>  	 * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
>>  	 * can't be reordered with __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
>>  	 * done by the caller to avoid the race with signal_wake_up().
>> +	 *
>> +	 * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
>> +	 * after coming from user-space, before storing to rq->curr.
>>  	 */
>>  	rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>>  	smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>> --
>> 2.11.0

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