linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/qspinlock: Optimize for x86

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: <20180927071747.GD5254@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:17:47 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/qspinlock: Optimize for x86

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:52:08PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On x86 we cannot do fetch_or with a single instruction and end up
> > using a cmpxchg loop, this reduces determinism. Replace the fetch_or
> > with a very tricky composite xchg8 + load.
> > 
> > The basic idea is that we use xchg8 to test-and-set the pending bit
> > (when it is a byte) and then a load to fetch the whole word. Using
> > two instructions of course opens a window we previously did not have.
> > In particular the ordering between pending and tail is of interrest,
> > because that is where the split happens.
> > 
> > The claim is that if we order them, it all works out just fine. There
> > are two specific cases where the pending,tail state changes:
> > 
> >  - when the 3rd lock(er) comes in and finds pending set, it'll queue
> >    and set tail; since we set tail while pending is set, the ordering
> >    is split is not important (and not fundamentally different form
> >    fetch_or). [*]
> > 
> >  - when the last queued lock holder acquires the lock (uncontended),
> >    we clear the tail and set the lock byte. By first setting the
> >    pending bit this cmpxchg will fail and the later load must then
> >    see the remaining tail.
> > 
> > Another interesting scenario is where there are only 2 threads:
> > 
> > 	lock := (0,0,0)
> > 
> > 	CPU 0			CPU 1
> > 
> > 	lock()			lock()
> > 	  trylock(-> 0,0,1)       trylock() /* fail */
> > 	    return;               xchg_relaxed(pending, 1) (-> 0,1,1)
> > 				  mb()
> > 				  val = smp_load_acquire(*lock);
> > 
> > Where, without the mb() the load would've been allowed to return 0 for
> > the locked byte.
> 
> If this were true, we would have a violation of "coherence":

The thing is, this is mixed size, see:

  https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/popl17/mixed-size.pdf

If I remember things correctly (I've not reread that paper recently) it
is allowed for:

	old = xchg(pending,1);
	val = smp_load_acquire(*lock);

to be re-ordered like:

	val = smp_load_acquire(*lock);
	old = xchg(pending, 1);

with the exception that it will fwd the pending byte into the later
load, so we get:

	val = (val & _Q_PENDING_MASK) | (old << _Q_PENDING_OFFSET);

for 'free'.

LKMM in particular does _NOT_ deal with mixed sized atomics _at_all_.

With the addition of smp_mb__after_atomic(), we disallow the load to be
done prior to the xchg(). It might still fwd the more recent pending
byte from its store buffer, but at least the other bytes must not be
earlier.