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:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 05:12:03 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dbueso@...e.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, jade alglave <jade.alglave@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier to read_slowpath
 exit when queue is empty

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 06:50:52AM -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi Jan, Waiman, [+Jade and Paul for the litmus test at the end]
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 09:22:00PM +0200, 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 an abridged form of the litmus test here, just to show the cod
> > flow? e.g.:
> > 
> > /*
> >  * We need to ensure ACQUIRE semantics when reading sem->count so that
> >  * we pair with the RELEASE store performed by an unlocking/downgrading
> >  * writer.
> >  *
> >  * P0 (writer)			P1 (reader)
> >  *
> >  * down_write(sem);
> >  * <write shared data>
> >  * downgrade_write(sem);
> >  * -> fetch_add_release(&sem->count)
> >  *
> >  *				down_read_slowpath(sem);
> >  *				-> atomic_read(&sem->count)
> >  *				   <ctrl dep>
> >  *				   smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()
> >  *				<read shared data>
> >  */
> 
> Works for me. The code is at 3 level of indentation, but I can try
> to squeeze it in for v4.
> 
> > 
> > In writing this, I also noticed that we don't have any explicit ordering
> > at the end of the reader slowpath when we wait on the queue but get woken
> > immediately:
> > 
> > 	if (!waiter.task)
> > 		break;
> > 
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> I'm assuming this isn't problem, because set_current_state() on line above
> is using smp_store_mb().
> 
> > 
> > > +			smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> > >  			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > >  			rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
> > >  			lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_fast);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > with litmus test in commit log:
> > > ----------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------------
> > > C rwsem
> > > 
> > > {
> > > 	atomic_t rwsem_count = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
> > > 	int vmacache_seqnum = 10;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P0(int *vmacache_seqnum, atomic_t *rwsem_count)
> > > {
> > > 	r0 = READ_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum);
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum, r0 + 1);
> > > 	/* downgrade_write */
> > > 	r1 = atomic_fetch_add_release(-1+256, rwsem_count);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > P1(int *vmacache_seqnum, atomic_t *rwsem_count, spinlock_t *sem_wait_lock)
> > > {
> > > 	/* rwsem_read_trylock */
> > > 	r0 = atomic_add_return_acquire(256, rwsem_count);
> > > 	/* rwsem_down_read_slowpath */
> > > 	spin_lock(sem_wait_lock);
> > > 	r0 = atomic_read(rwsem_count);
> > > 	if ((r0 & 1) == 0) {
> > > 		// BUG: needs barrier
> > > 		spin_unlock(sem_wait_lock);
> > > 		r1 = READ_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum);
> > > 	}
> > > }
> > > exists (1:r1=10)
> > > ----------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------------
> > 
> > Thanks for writing this! It's definitely worth sticking it in the commit
> > log, but Paul and Jade might also like to include it as part of their litmus
> > test repository too.

Thank you for forwarding this!  It may now be found at:

https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-JanStancek-rwsem.litmus

							Thanx, Paul