linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: stats: Defer stats update to cpufreq_stats_record

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, 11 Sep 2020 14:16:33 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, cristian.marussi@....com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: stats: Defer stats update to cpufreq_stats_record_transition()

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 11-09-20, 12:11, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:54:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > +   atomic_t reset_pending;
> >
> > > +   atomic_set(&stats->reset_pending, 0);
> > > +   if (atomic_read(&stats->reset_pending))
> > > +   bool pending = atomic_read(&stats->reset_pending);
> > > +   atomic_set(&stats->reset_pending, 1);
> > > +   bool pending = atomic_read(&stats->reset_pending);
> > > +   if (atomic_read(&stats->reset_pending))
> >
> > What do you think atomic_t is doing for you?
>
> I was trying to avoid races while two writes are going in parallel,
> but obviously as this isn't a RMW operation, it won't result in
> anything for me.
>
> Maybe what I should be doing is just READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()? So the
> other side doesn't see any intermediate value that was never meant to
> be set/read ?

If the value in question is a pointer or an int (or equivalent),
READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() should be sufficient, and should be used at
least as a matter of annotation of the sensitive code IMO.

IIRC, atomic_set() and atomic_read() are pretty much the same as
WRITE_ONCE() and READ_ONCE(), respectively, anyway.

Cheers!