linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock implementation

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: <YHaU4uxr6emrivuu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:08:18 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Müllner <christophm30@...il.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: locks: introduce ticket-based spinlock
 implementation

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:26:57AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> Thx Peter,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:17 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:03:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > For ticket locks you really only needs atomic_fetch_add() and
> > > smp_store_release() and an architectural guarantees that the
> > > atomic_fetch_add() has fwd progress under contention and that a sub-word
> > > store (through smp_store_release()) will fail the SC.
> > >
> > > Then you can do something like:
> > >
> > > void lock(atomic_t *lock)
> > > {
> > >       u32 val = atomic_fetch_add(1<<16, lock); /* SC, gives us RCsc */
> > >       u16 ticket = val >> 16;
> > >
> > >       for (;;) {
> > >               if (ticket == (u16)val)
> > >                       break;
> > >               cpu_relax();
> > >               val = atomic_read_acquire(lock);
> > >       }
> Should it be?
>        for (;;) {
>                if (ticket == (u16)val) {
>                        __atomic_acquire_fence();
>                        break;
>                }

No, atomic_fetch_add() is full smp_mb(), it even has a comment on that
says so.

Also, __atomic_acquire_fence() is an implementation detail of atomic,
and architectures need not provide it. On top of that, IIRC the atomic
_acquire/_release have RCpc ordering, where we want our locks to have
RCsc ordering (and very much not weaker than RCtso). Even more so,
adding barriers to atomics should really not be conditional.