linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] membarrier: Remove arm (32) support for SYNC

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, 17 Jun 2021 06:41:41 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] membarrier: Remove arm (32) support for SYNC_CORE



On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, at 4:33 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:23:05PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:40:46AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 08:21:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On arm32, the only way to safely flush icache from usermode is to call
> > > > cacheflush(2).  This also handles any required pipeline flushes, so
> > > > membarrier's SYNC_CORE feature is useless on arm.  Remove it.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated than that, and these days
> > > SYNC_CORE is equally necessary on arm as on arm64. This is something
> > > that changed in the architecture over time, but since ARMv7 we generally
> > > need both the cache maintenance *and* a context synchronization event
> > > (the latter must occur on the CPU which will execute the instructions).
> > > 
> > > If you look at the latest ARMv7-AR manual (ARM DDI 406C.d), section
> > > A3.5.4 "Concurrent modification and execution of instructions" covers
> > > this. That manual can be found at:
> > > 
> > > 	https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0406/latest/
> > 
> > Looking at that, sys_cacheflush() meets this. The manual details a
> > series of cache maintenance calls in "step 1" that the modifying thread
> > must issue - this is exactly what sys_cacheflush() does. The same is
> > true for ARMv6, except the "ISB" terminology is replaced by a
> > "PrefetchFlush" terminology. (I checked DDI0100I).
> > 
> > "step 2" requires an ISB on the "other CPU" prior to executing that
> > code. As I understand it, in ARMv7, userspace can issue an ISB itself.
> > 
> > For ARMv6K, it doesn't have ISB, but instead has a CP15 instruction
> > for this that isn't availble to userspace. This is where we come to
> > the situation about ARM 11MPCore, and whether we continue to support
> > it or not.
> > 
> > So, I think we're completely fine with ARMv7 under 32-bit ARM kernels
> > as userspace has everything that's required. ARMv6K is a different
> > matter as we've already identified for several reasons.
> 
> Sure, and I agree we should not change cacheflush().
> 
> The point of membarrier(SYNC_CORE) is that you can move the cost of that
> ISB out of the fast-path in the executing thread(s) and into the
> slow-path on the thread which generated the code.
> 
> So e.g. rather than an executing thread always having to do:
> 
> 	LDR	<reg>, [<funcptr>]
> 	ISB	// in case funcptr was just updated
> 	BLR	<reg>
> 
> ... you have the thread generating the code use membarrier(SYNC_CORE)
> prior to plublishing the funcptr, and the fast-path on all the executing
> threads can be:
> 
> 	LDR	<reg> [<funcptr>]
> 	BLR	<reg>
> 
> ... and thus I think we still want membarrier(SYNC_CORE) so that people
> can do this, even if there are other means to achieve the same
> functionality.

I had the impression that sys_cacheflush() did that.  Am I wrong?

In any event, I’m even more convinced that no new SYNC_CORE arches should be added. We need a new API that just does the right thing.