linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier

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]

Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 14:02:10 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant
 read_barrier_depends()

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:43:41PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:36:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:24:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:08:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 11:33:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > 
> > > > > > > and this barrier is no longer paired with anything until
> > > > > > > you realize there's a dependency barrier within READ_ONCE.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Barrier pairing was a useful tool to check code validity,
> > > > > > > maybe there are other, better tools now.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are quite a few people who say that smp_store_release() is
> > > > > > easier for the tools to analyze than is smp_wmb().  My experience with
> > > > > > smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
> > > > > > that they are correct.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, but smp_store_release is still not paired with anything since we
> > > > > rely on READ_ONCE to include the implicit dpendendency barrier.
> > > > 
> > > > Why wouldn't you consider the smp_store_release() to be paired with
> > > > the new improved READ_ONCE()?
> > > 
> > > READ_ONCE is really all over the place (some code literally replaced all
> > > memory accesses with READ/WRITE ONCE).
> > > 
> > > And I also prefer smp_wmb as it seems to be cheaper on ARM.
> > > 
> > > Would an API like WRITE_POINTER()/smp_store_pointer make sense,
> > > and READ_POINTER for symmetry?
> > 
> > What we do in some code is to comment the pairings, allowing the other
> > side of the pairing to be easily located.  Would that work for you?
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I did for now.

Very good, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul