linux-kernel - Re: asm-generic: Disallow no-op mb() for SMP systems

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: <20180201133229.GB9182@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:32:30 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: asm-generic: Disallow no-op mb() for SMP systems

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:29:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:27:50PM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > I tried to clarify some of this in the spec v1.2 [0] which help formalize some of
> > the techniques we used for the SMP implementation.  Its probably not perfect,
> > but I added a section "10. Multicore support" and tried to clarify some things
> > in section 7 on Atomicity.  But it seems I dont cover exactly what are are
> > mentioning here.  In general:
> > 
> >   1 Secondary cores have memory snooping enabled meaning that any write to a
> >     cached address will cause the cache line to be invalidated.
> >   2 l.swa (store atomic word) implies a store buffer flush.
> 
> What about l.lwa? Can that observe 'old' values, or rather, miss values
> stuck in a remote store buffer?
> 
> This will then cause the first l.swa to fail, which, per the above,
> would then sync things up? Which means you get that one extra
> merry-go-round.

That's ok from a correctness perspective, though, as long as store buffers
are guaranteed to drain.

> >   3 l.msync is used to flush the store buffer
> > 
> > Also, during the IPI controller review [1] Marc Z asked many similar questions.
> > I believe he was ok in the end.
> > 
> > Anyway,
> > Thanks for thanks for spotting the issue here.  For some reason I remember we
> > did have an l.msync for our mb().  Let me think about and test out this patch
> > (and the fix to actually define mb) to see if anything comes up.
> > 
> > Also, I haven't seen any implementations that use WOM.  Stefan might know better.
> 
> So if the strong model has a store buffer, as I think the above says,
> then it is _NOT_ correct for l.msync to be treated as a NOP, it _must_
> flush the store buffer.
> 
> At which point I think your 'strong' model is basically TSO. So it would
> be very good to get that spelled out somewhere.

Agreed, especially as a software person reading the spec may end up thinking
that they don't need to use l.msync if they never set WOM. At least, I read
it this way despite knowing that it's probably not what you intended.

Will