| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <tip-3d85b2703783636366560c94842affd8608ec9d1@git.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:31:21 -0700
From: tip-bot for Andrea Parri <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, will.deacon@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: [tip:locking/core] locking/spinlock, sched/core: Clarify
requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()
Commit-ID: 3d85b2703783636366560c94842affd8608ec9d1
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/3d85b2703783636366560c94842affd8608ec9d1
Author: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
AuthorDate: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:06:02 -0700
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:30:33 +0200
locking/spinlock, sched/core: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock()
There are 11 interpretations of the requirements described in the header
comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(): one for each LKMM maintainer, and
one currently encoded in the Cat file. Stick to the latter (until a more
satisfactory solution is available).
This also reworks some snippets related to the barrier to illustrate the
requirements and to link them to the idioms which are relied upon at its
call sites.
Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: akiyks@...il.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: j.alglave@....ac.uk
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Cc: luc.maranget@...ia.fr
Cc: npiggin@...il.com
Cc: parri.andrea@...il.com
Cc: stern@...land.harvard.edu
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180716180605.16115-11-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/spinlock.h | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
kernel/sched/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++------------------
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index fd57888d4942..3190997df9ca 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -114,29 +114,48 @@ do { \
#endif /*arch_spin_is_contended*/
/*
- * This barrier must provide two things:
+ * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides the equivalent of a full memory barrier
+ * between program-order earlier lock acquisitions and program-order later
+ * memory accesses.
*
- * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against a
- * LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites.
+ * This guarantees that the following two properties hold:
*
- * - it must ensure the critical section is RCsc.
+ * 1) Given the snippet:
*
- * The latter is important for cases where we observe values written by other
- * CPUs in spin-loops, without barriers, while being subject to scheduling.
+ * { X = 0; Y = 0; }
*
- * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
+ * CPU0 CPU1
*
- * for (;;) {
- * if (READ_ONCE(X))
- * break;
- * }
- * X=1
- * <sched-out>
- * <sched-in>
- * r = X;
+ * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1);
+ * spin_lock(S); smp_mb();
+ * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); r1 = READ_ONCE(X);
+ * r0 = READ_ONCE(Y);
+ * spin_unlock(S);
*
- * without transitivity it could be that CPU1 observes X!=0 breaks the loop,
- * we get migrated and CPU2 sees X==0.
+ * it is forbidden that CPU0 does not observe CPU1's store to Y (r0 = 0)
+ * and CPU1 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r1 = 0); see the comments
+ * preceding the call to smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule() and in
+ * try_to_wake_up().
+ *
+ * 2) Given the snippet:
+ *
+ * { X = 0; Y = 0; }
+ *
+ * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
+ *
+ * spin_lock(S); spin_lock(S); r1 = READ_ONCE(Y);
+ * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_rmb();
+ * spin_unlock(S); r0 = READ_ONCE(X); r2 = READ_ONCE(X);
+ * WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1);
+ * spin_unlock(S);
+ *
+ * it is forbidden that CPU0's critical section executes before CPU1's
+ * critical section (r0 = 1), CPU2 observes CPU1's store to Y (r1 = 1)
+ * and CPU2 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r2 = 0); see the comments
+ * preceding the calls to smp_rmb() in try_to_wake_up() for similar
+ * snippets but "projected" onto two CPUs.
+ *
+ * Property (2) upgrades the lock to an RCsc lock.
*
* Since most load-store architectures implement ACQUIRE with an smp_mb() after
* the LL/SC loop, they need no further barriers. Similarly all our TSO
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fe365c9a08e9..0c5ec2abdf93 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1998,21 +1998,20 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
* be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck
* in smp_cond_load_acquire() below.
*
- * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
- * [S] p->on_rq = 1; [L] P->state
- * UNLOCK rq->lock -----.
- * \
- * +--- RMB
- * schedule() /
- * LOCK rq->lock -----'
- * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
+ * STORE p->on_rq = 1 LOAD p->state
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ *
+ * __schedule() (switch to task 'p')
+ * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
+ * smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
*
* [task p]
- * [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE [L] p->on_rq
+ * STORE p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE LOAD p->on_rq
*
- * Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the
- * last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task
- * current.
+ * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
+ * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
*/
smp_rmb();
if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
@@ -2026,15 +2025,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
* One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
* from the runqueue.
*
- * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq
- * UNLOCK rq->lock
- * RMB
- * LOCK rq->lock
- * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu
+ * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') try_to_wake_up()
+ * STORE p->on_cpu = 1 LOAD p->on_rq
+ * UNLOCK rq->lock
+ *
+ * __schedule() (put 'p' to sleep)
+ * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
+ * smp_mb__after_spinlock();
+ * STORE p->on_rq = 0 LOAD p->on_cpu
*
- * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock
- * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our
- * task, the second putting it to sleep.
+ * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
+ * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
*/
smp_rmb();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists