linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier to read

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:   Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:39:37 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dbueso@...e.de, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier to read_slowpath
 exit when queue is empty

On 7/17/19 3:22 PM, Jan Stancek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:19:04AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> If you add a comment to the code outlining the issue (preferably as
>>> a litmus
>>> test involving sem->count and some shared data which happens to be
>>> vmacache_seqnum in your test)), then:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Will
>>
>> Agreed. A comment just above smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() on why this
>> is needed will be great.
>>
>> Other than that,
>>
>> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>>
>
> litmus test looks a bit long, would following be acceptable?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 37524a47f002..d9c96651bfc7 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,13 @@ static inline bool
> rwsem_reader_phase_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>           */
>          if (adjustment && !(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) &
>               (RWSEM_WRITER_MASK | RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF))) {
> +            /*
> +             * down_read() issued ACQUIRE on enter, but we can race
> +             * with writer who did RELEASE only after us.
> +             * ACQUIRE here makes sure reader operations happen only
> +             * after all writer ones.
> +             */


How about that?

                /*
                 * Add an acquire barrier here to make sure no stale data
                 * acquired before the above test where the writer may still
                 * be holding the lock will be reused in the reader
critical
                 * section.
                 */

Thanks,
Longman