linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 5.1 0/3] Restartable Sequences updates for 5.1

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 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:   Wed, 6 Mar 2019 09:30:39 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 5.1 0/3] Restartable Sequences updates for 5.1

On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> >> * Adaptative mutex improvements
> >> 
> >> I have done a prototype using rseq to implement an adaptative mutex which
> >> can detect preemption using a rseq critical section. This ensures the
> >> thread doesn't continue to busy-loop after it returns from preemption, and
> >> calls sys_futex() instead. This is part of a user-space prototype branch [2],
> >> and does not require any kernel change.
> > 
> > I'm still not convinced that is actually the right way to go about
> > things. The kernel heuristic is spin while the _owner_ runs, and we
> > don't get preempted, obviously.
> > 
> > And the only userspace spinning that makes sense is to cover the cost of
> > the syscall. Now Obviously PTI wrecked everything, but before that
> > syscalls were actually plenty fast and you didn't need many cmpxchg
> > cycles to amortize the syscall itself -- which could then do kernel side
> > adaptive spinning (when required).
> 
> Indeed with PTI the system calls are back to their slow self. ;)
> 
> You point about owner is interesting. Perhaps there is one tweak that I
> should add in there. We could write the owner thread ID in the lock word.

This is already required for PI (and I think robust) futexes. There have
been proposals for FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK (!PI) primitives that
require the same.

Waiman had some patches; but I think all went under because 'important'
stuff happened.

> When trying to grab a lock, one of a few situations can happen:
> 
> - It's unlocked, so we grab it by storing our thread ID,
> - It's locked, and we can fetch the CPU number of the thread owning it
>   if we can access its (struct rseq *)->cpu_id through a lookup using its
>   thread ID, We can then check whether it's the same CPU we are running on.

That might just work with threads (private futexes; which are the
majority these these I think), but will obviously not work with regular
(shared) futexes.

>   - If so, we _know_ we should let the owner run, so we call futex right away,
>     no spinning. We can even boost it for priority inheritance mutexes,
>   - If it's owned by a thread which was last running on a different CPU,
>     then it may make sense to actively try to grab the lock by spinning
>     up to a certain number of loops (which can be either fixed or adaptative).
>     After that limit, call futex. If preempted while looping, call futex.
> 
> Do you see this as an improvement over what exists today, or am I
> on the wrong track ?

That's probably better than what they have today. Last time I looked at
libc pthread I got really sad -- arguably that was a long time ago, and
some of that stuff is because POSIX, but still.

Some day we should redesign all that.. futex2 etc.