linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched: TTWU, IPI, and assorted stuff

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: <20200619181128.GC576888@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:11:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, frederic@...nel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched: TTWU, IPI, and assorted stuff

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:48:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:20:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > > @@ -2615,7 +2617,8 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > >  	 * let the waker make forward progress. This is safe because IRQs are
> > >  	 * disabled and the IPI will deliver after on_cpu is cleared.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if (READ_ONCE(p->on_cpu) && ttwu_queue_wakelist(p, cpu, wake_flags | WF_ON_RQ))
> > > +	if (smp_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu) &&
> 
> Given the x86 memory model, this only protects against the compiler
> reordering accesses in ttwu_queue_wakelist() against the fetch of
> p->on_cpu, correct?

Yes.

> Don't get me wrong, I do see some potential compiler misorderings,
> including with cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running.  Just curious.

Given this is arch independent code, I'd better write generic code, and
there I really think this wants to be acquire. I'll also try and write a
comment for next time.