linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before

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, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than
 membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode

----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:

> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@...il.com wrote:
>> I should be more complete here, especially since I was complaining
>> about unclear barrier comment :)
>> 
>> 
>> CPU0                     CPU1
>> a. user stuff            1. user stuff
>> b. membarrier()          2. enter kernel
>> c. smp_mb()              3. smp_mb__after_spinlock(); // in __schedule
>> d. read rq->curr         4. rq->curr switched to kthread
>> e. is kthread, skip IPI  5. switch_to kthread
>> f. return to user        6. rq->curr switched to user thread
>> g. user stuff            7. switch_to user thread
>>                         8. exit kernel
>>                         9. more user stuff
>> 
>> What you're really ordering is a, g vs 1, 9 right?
>> 
>> In other words, 9 must see a if it sees g, g must see 1 if it saw 9,
>> etc.
>> 
>> Userspace does not care where the barriers are exactly or what kernel
>> memory accesses might be being ordered by them, so long as there is a
>> mb somewhere between a and g, and 1 and 9. Right?
> 
> This is correct.

Actually, sorry, the above is not quite right. It's been a while
since I looked into the details of membarrier.

The smp_mb() at the beginning of membarrier() needs to be paired with a
smp_mb() _after_ rq->curr is switched back to the user thread, so the
memory barrier is between store to rq->curr and following user-space
accesses.

The smp_mb() at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with the
smp_mb__after_spinlock() at the beginning of schedule, which is
between accesses to userspace memory and switching rq->curr to kthread.

As to *why* this ordering is needed, I'd have to dig through additional
scenarios from https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/. Or maybe Paul remembers ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


> Note that the accesses to user-space memory can be
> done either by user-space code or kernel code, it doesn't matter.
> However, in order to be considered as happening before/after
> either membarrier or the matching compiler barrier, kernel code
> needs to have causality relationship with user-space execution,
> e.g. user-space does a system call, or returns from a system call.
> 
> In the case of io_uring, submitting a request or returning from waiting
> on request completion appear to provide this causality relationship.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com