linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: Cache number of online CPUs

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:   Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:53:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: Cache number of online CPUs

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 5, 2019, at 4:49 AM, Ingo Molnar mingo@...nel.org wrote:
> > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >> The semantic I am looking for here is C11's relaxed atomics.
> > 
> > What does this mean?
> 
> C11 states:
> 
> "Atomic operations specifying memory_order_relaxed are  relaxed  only  with  respect
> to memory ordering.  Implementations must still guarantee that any given atomic access
> to a particular atomic object be indivisible with respect to all other atomic accesses
> to that object."
> 
> So I am concerned that num_online_cpus() as proposed in this patch
> try to access __num_online_cpus non-atomically, and without using
> READ_ONCE().
>
> 
> Similarly, the update-side should use WRITE_ONCE(). Protecting with a mutex
> does not provide mutual exclusion against concurrent readers of that variable.

Again. This is nothing new. The current implementation of num_online_cpus()
has no guarantees whatsoever. 

bitmap_hweight() can be hit by a concurrent update of the mask it is
looking at.

num_online_cpus() gives you only the correct number if you invoke it inside
a cpuhp_lock held section. So why do we need that fuzz about atomicity now?

It's racy and was racy forever and even if we add that READ/WRITE_ONCE muck
then it still wont give you a reliable answer unless you hold cpuhp_lock at
least for read. So fore me that READ/WRITE_ONCE is just a cosmetic and
misleading reality distortion.

Thanks,

	tglx