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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:53:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
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 01:32:30PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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.

Depends a bit if you can build control dependencies off of l.swa
succeding or not I think :-) Otherwise you get into that dodgy state you
suffer from where bits can leak right through.

That is, I was thinking what we need for smp_mb__before_atomic.

I could've gotten my brain in a twist or course, which isn't _that_
unusual. I never seem to be able to quite remember the holes you have
with ll/sc on arm64 :-)